Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've always leaned towards the more relaxed side of review standards on > translations, but our concensus policy has always been to have reviews on > anything non-english.
I believe the original intention to have reviews on translations was to prevent absurd translation to go into our repository. IMHO, if one can be trusted enough to be a committer, he/she can be trusted enough to decide whether particular translation should go into the repository or needs review first. > I'm personally willing to see commit-then-review on small changes, as long > as the two of you promise to watch the commits and to inform us if you > ever stop watching the commits. It seems nobody cared about review of Japanese translation when I was the only committer. I wonder why is this sudden interest? I'm curious because I've never seen the rule enforced strictly except the translation is the first submission of someone. I also thought it *was* mostly for non-committer patch submission. The first time additional reviewer is mentioned in my archive is the reply from Ricard Oliva to your mail in March 21, 2001. | 2. I think that we are going to try to make it a policy that we only | accept non-english patches when we have at least one reviewer in addition | to the author. That way we avoid embarrassing stuff like the former Polish | page and the current Brazilian Portuguese page. An exception can be made | in the case of the "It worked" page, since we certainly want to clean up | the garbage that is there. However, in the future, we probably won't | accept patches this way. -- Yoshiki Hayashi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
