severity 765657 minor
reopen 765657
thanks
On 2014-10-17 09:58, Osamu Aoki wrote:
control: tags 765657 - l10n
control: severity 765657 wishlist
control: tags 765657 + wontfix
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:53:27PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Package: debian-reference-en
Version: 2.55
Severity: minor
Tags: l10n
l10n? Are you doing this as English language proof reading? Strange
tag.
l10n is a common tag (which may indeed apply to English):
https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#tags
Section 1 contains:
The Debian system itself is a moving target. This makes its
documentation difficult to be current and correct. Although the
current unstable version of the Debian system was used as the basis
for writing this, some contents may be already outdated by the time
you read this.
to be should read something like to keep.
I think both are OK and practically the same. Matter of taste.
(If you wish to nitpick on style, you can find many..)
Well, the current phrasing might be understandable, but a valid phrasing would
be more to my taste.
By the way, the version of the Debian system used as basis is not the
current unstable version [anymore], and I'm not sure this paragraph is
warranted. Pretty much all healthy software changes. Debian's
documentation is no harder to keep updated than documentation for an
equally complex project, disregarding language issues. I suggest
shortening this to at most 2 sentences.
Do you know this document has many translations to update, too. (They
are kept in sync.) So this kind of changes are non-trivial.
If the English version is the master version, then fixing it would be all the
more urgent. The better the master version becomes, the easier translating will
be.
It is very
hardwork for me ... Please do not comment like no harder Quite
frankly, I was offended.
I am sorry if you were offended, that should not have happened. I wrote no harder, not
not hard. I am well aware that documenting is not easy. I was asking to change the
paragraph, not necessarily to remove it entirely. I want to ensure that this paragraph is useful,
and that it doesn't read as an excuse for providing a low quality document. I see 3 options:
* Removal. The developer in me favors this, because the paragraph did not
teach me anything. Very few projects have one release with documentation, then
no further releases with functional changes. Almost all software documentation
has the same challenge as the Debian Reference. Even then, readers may not
realize this and it may be worth it to mention that.
* A short version without going into the causes. I would suggest:Parts of this are
probably outdated.
* Keep a treatment of the causes, but be clear. For example, Debian being a
moving target can explain why the documentation would not be current, but how
would it explain it not being *correct*?
It may be warranted to keep some treatment of the problem, but readers would
surely prefer to read an apology with an invitation to report issues if they
notice some, than something which makes the problem sound as unavoidable. And
we would probably get more feedback too.
What have you done for Debian? If you can
provide a patch with translation to me, I may consider ... but I think
there are much higher priority things to update. systemd ... gTLD, ...
minor severity is the minimal priority bugs can have. Even if the severity
had been inflated, you would have been free to work on what you want, when you want.
If you check changelog or VCS, you understand this document is pretty
much single person work. Responding this is already a burden ... sigh.
If you have a manpower issue, trying to get rid of tickets is definitely not
going to solve it. Instead, respect the contributions you get, and try
recruiting contributors so they can actually fix their issues and others,
instead of being driven away.
Looking at this package, it does seem like you have a major lack of manpower.
If you can't fix that organically, I strongly suggest you open an RFH. On the
other hand, it might be possible to realign the reference's scope with its
means. If this has to stay a single-person work, perhaps some parts can be
eliminated or moved out (section 11 and the one on mc, for example).
If you are a native English speaker reviewing the whole text, give me
a good set of real style update suggestions.
I am not.
Hmmm... googling your name I found:
https://bugs.debian.org/501382
https://bugs.debian.org/508240
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?submitter=chealer%40gmail.com
Maybe there was a reason for *ban*. I should not waste time on this.
I am not sure what you mean. I certainly don't think googling my name is
going to help solving this issue.
Some bug reports are OK. But let's keep this as civil and productive.
If you are suggesting this is no longer civil or productive, feel free to
explain how this could be more civil.
Regards,
