On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Sven wrote: > > > I received a german translation of on of my packages description, and after > > having read it, i communicated with the translator and together we found a > > better translation. Also i did change the english description following to > > this discution, as i noticed some things could be improved there also. > > > So, at least something usefull as come of those mails, altough i agree with > > others that wouldn't know what to do with a japanese or rusian translation. > > > Also, for those who complain, procmail is your friend, ... > > Please, let no one suggest further that procmail is a solution here. This is > tantamount to admitting that these messages *are* equivalent to Spam -- that > because the recipient has the technical means to filter out the messages, they > have no cause for complaint. But the burden should not be on the recipient to > make the system work the way it needs to, it should be on the sender of the > messages. > > I was among those who argued initially that the maintainer needs to be kept in > the loop, and should therefore receive the translations. But clearly, there > are maintainers who don't share this view, and they are (rightfully) upset > that they have to repeatedly ask, for every new package they upload, to be > excluded from the notifications. For the sake of the DDTS itself, a technical > solution should be found that lets developers opt out if they feel they have > nothing to contribute to the translation process, and that lets everyone get > back to work. Infighting among developers takes the focus away from both free > software and our users, and telling dozens of developers[1] to shove off and > use procmail if they don't like the state of things is just the sort of > reaction that would encourage infighting.
opt in opt in opt in opt in opt in opt in opt in opt in opt in opt in opt in
