On 08/05/12 00:49 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote: > * Cédric Krier [2012-05-08 00:37 +0200]: > >On 08/05/12 00:09 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote: > >>* Bertrand Chenal [2012-05-07 22:16 +0200]: > >>I think that translation should be considered just like development. > >>And thus only bugfixes for the translation should enter the main > >>branch during the freeze. > > > >No. Translation is not like development. > >I don't want to have commit everyday for translations just because a new > >string appears because this means not just 1 commit more but now 10 > >commits (and more in the future). > > The number of commit is irrelevant to the discussion.
Perhaps for your small amount of commit you do. But when you start to commit more often it is really boring, stupid and irrelevant to have to merge for translations that are not stable. > The sooner the translator do their job, the sooner the .po file will > be ready, testable and thus the sooner the people will get the > opportunity to correct and fix the translations. Don't care. Do that somewhere else than in the main repository. Again, pushing for testing is *wrong* and it is not what we do for everything else so why doing it for that? > >Nobody translates a book when the writer is writing it! > > In the peculiar process we're using, it would not happen this way > since there is the codereview process which ensure that a full bunch > of strings get in the main tree all together at once. There are never codereview for translations. And according to the codereview rate, I'm pretty sure it will be useless to try to do it. -- Cédric Krier B2CK SPRL Rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 Email/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
pgpp0Jl8P1ok6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
