On 26 October 2012 23:06, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote: > Am 10/26/2012 07:43 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > > Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> 1) release new languages via lang packs only for now >>> 2) release full installs, but for only these new languages >>> >> >> I don't see a big difference between a langpack and a full install in >> this case, so I'd go for full installs, unless releasing langpacks helps >> in communicating that these are "late" additions and that full installs >> will come with the next release. >> >> Can we really skip the release process? PO files == source, right? >>> >> >> Yes, not exactly but quite (PO files are not taken verbatim into source, >> but they are imported and influence resource files which are in the >> source tree). >> >> Maybe a question for legal-discuss if we're not certain. >>> >> >> If in the end we have consensus on releasing new languages for 3.4.1 >> instead of making a new release, indeed we will ask. >> >> How do we want to handle this on an ongoing basis? New point release >>> for every new language? Every 5 new languages? It is certainly good >>> for volunteers to get the encouragement of a fast turnaround for their >>> work. But this is the same for a C++ programmer. >>> >> >> There are big differences here, that are also the reason for me to >> consider releasing these new languages as soon as possible: >> - A translation is often done by a team; if we can publish it >> immediately, the team can the be involved in other activities like >> revamping the N-L website, local promotion and so on; if we wait too >> much, we risk to have no volunteers for the following release. >> > > Really? I'm not that convinced that this would happen. When we communicate > from the beginning when new loalizations will be released then everybody > should be able to understand and handle this. > > > - Releasing a new language is totally risk-free: a new language can't >> break functionality in OpenOffice, while any feature could have bugs and >> needs more qualified testing. >> > > Besides the comment from Jan I remember a case from the old OOo project. > There were some translations for the names of Calc functions that got the > same name but had to get (slightly) different names. The result was that > there were 2-3 sum, 2-3 average, etc. functions. This was also - more or > less the only - reason for another respin for a OOo RC; 3.2.1, 3.3.0, I > don't remember anymore. > > So, the risk of new languages may not be high but I wouldn't say it's > totally risk-free. > > > In the end, I wonder whether the best solution is to get into a steady >>> release cycle of quarterly releases (every 3 or 4 months)? >>> >> > +1 > > IMHO a regular release schedule is a very good idea. Then everybody can > cope with this, can see when the next version will come and we can plan > with a regular release plan (when to branch, freeze, localize, etc.). > > Of course the timeframe will need some discussions to find the right one. > > Previously it was tried to release every 6 months a new major release and > every 6 months a point release. So, with overlapping there was a new > release every 3 month. Maybe a good timeframe to continue?
+1 to a relatively fixed time frame for new releases. Not only developers benefit from that but also end-users ! However do we have the logistic in place to handle ideas/request/bug fixes with these short intervals. It would mean (in my opinion) that we have an open catalog (new development) for 2-3 releases and have to prioritize within a limited timeframe what goes where ? We should also consider to apply a field in bugzilla, "targeted for version". I really like the idea, but it has a tendency of killing long term developments, because they are hard to put into this framework, so we need something in the middle. > > This could be a solution too. In this case we would have the problem of >> choosing what to translate (3.4 or 3.5? probably we would ask new >> volunteers to focus on strings that will be in the next release, even >> though they aren't frozen yet). >> > > In any case we should continue to release new languages; regardless if > major or point versions. > > Marcus >
