Quoting Daniel Baumann ([email protected]): > On 08/12/2011 09:52 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > (yeah, I know, Daniel, long text...:-)...I'll try to adapt the process > > with you as beta-tester...but, sometimes, I would also appreciate that > > you ask for a review of debconf templates *before* throwing them out > > in the wild) > > as you told me, there appears to be no automated mechanism (like a > comment on top of the templates) to let people know that the templates > should not be reviewed yet in case the maintainer intents to heavily > change them in the subsequent uploads anyway.
In such case, I would suggest *not* marking templates as translatable if you think they will be modified in subsequent uploads. Still, I don't really understand the logic: if you upload a package with debconf templates, their wording and their behaviour has been reasonably well-tested, no? So, why should they be heavily changed? I understand easily that more templates/questions may need to be added, but carefully-enough prepared templates shouldn't really need deep reorganization. > > as a consequence, keeping the debconf integration entirely off just for > the sake of reviewing the templates (by me) first and hold of the > uploads is no solution either. > > oiow: don't start reviewing them just yet. So, should I close the bug report, get rid of the review...and just tell translators "wait for......dunno what....before translating"? Or should I conduct the review anyway?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
