Hi! * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[email protected]> [2010-08-08 05:00:28 CEST]: > I would like to request that the taks that removes the 'outdated' translated > web pages > from CVS by removing them is stopped. > > Here's why: > > - We already have a mechanism to warn of outdated (or very out of date pages)
Which isn't that prominent (to not distract from the real content too much) and thus easy to overlook. > - The sites see many cosmetic changes that 'outdates' translation for no > reason. If there are no reasons a smartchange should have done and the translations got bumped. People are very regularly reminded of doing that to not annoy translators or request them for updates that are of no need for translator interaction. This point thus isn't really relevant. > - Users/Developers that do not see the site translated are not encouraged to > help with translation, whileas users that see that pages *need* to be > updated are encouraged to. I'm not too sure about that. People that see pages translated and others not rather are encouraged to help out to translate the missing pages, while the outdated marker isn't that prominent. > - Users (at least Spanish-speaking) prefer out of date content in a language > that they can understand that updated content in a language they don't > understand (i.e. English) Even if that sounds like a reasonable claim I'm not really convinced that this is universally true. But this is still not too much relevant for the case here. 6 months is a half year and an extremely long time. Actually I would consider that all of our translation teams have the possibility to bring pages up to date at least half a year. Is that really *that* unreasonable? > What's worst, translators working in CVS do not have an easy way to recover > removed/purged pages from CVS. It takes quite a lot of work (simplified only > with shell access to cvs.debian.org) to review which CVS files have been > moved to the Attic, and how outdated they were. *This* seems to be the only convincing argument in your mail - and I'd rather like to have this addressed from a different angle of enabling the copypage tool to check for a version in the attic instead of blindly copying the english page, and for maybe also another tool that adds a list of pages moved to attic to the statistic overview. Because that would actually *help* to get those pages current again. Not having them removed for endlessly isn't the proper approach IMHO. > Since many translators are not precisely 'fluent' with CVS, I've seen > occasions in which a new member of a language team, eager to help out with > the website, does a translation from the webpage from scratch *when there was > an outdated (but removed) version available. See, and this is what needs to get addressed, not the removal of abandoned and not maintained anymore pages. > In its current status the "purging" of outdated translations is really bad as > it moves the files to the CVS Attic and there is no log whatsoever (as far as > I know) that tracks which files where removed when. And no easy way to > recover for those that do not know the ins and outs of CVS. Oh, the log of course is there, even a removal of a file is accompanied with a log message. I assume you haven't tried? > What's worst, the list of "translations that are going to be removed" (i.e. > http://people.debian.org/~peterk/outdated/ linked from > http://www.debian.org/devel/website/uptodate) is not even current! Then this also needs to get addressed, thanks for the information. Oh, and btw., at the end of the page is linked "How to revive a deleted translation" so the information about how to do that isn't that obscure or hidden, you actually were able to find it. :) > If this feature is really required (which I don't agree to) I would urge the > website team to find a way to *not* compile the wml files if the translation > is very out of date. But please DO NOT REMOVE the wml files with the out of > date translations from CVS! Again, is six months of timeframe from the update of the english file *really* that so totally out of bounds? Do we *really* believe that people can't be expected to check for outdated pages half a year? I'm not convinced - and yes, I agree with the lack of tools, even if they would consist only of a few lines of code. Am willing to pick up that task after I finished my packages for squeeze. Thanks, Rhonda -- "Lediglich 11 Prozent der Arbeitgeber sind der Meinung, dass jeder Mensch auch ein Privatleben haben sollte." -- http://www.karriere.at/artikel/884/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
