On Mar 7, 2016 12:50 PM, "Luca Toscano" <toscano.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi William, > > 2016-03-06 5:09 GMT+01:00 William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>: >> >> >> Welcome and TIA (thanks, in advance). > > > Welcome! > >> >> However the contributors/translators must personally review >> all of the text, and turn the automated translation into "human >> readable" text, accurately. > > > I have a more generic question about how to apply doc translation patched to the httpd project. Newcomers (like it was for me not long ago) needs to wait a bit of time to get their patches code reviewed and committed (if the quality meets the bar); I like this workflow a lot because it allows people to learn a lot without breaking anything, but the downside is that those patches might loose traction and get queued in the big list in bugzilla for long time. This issue seems to be more relevant when people sending patches related to translations do not find a committer that can validate the language grammar and push the change, like it has happened recently. What is your recommendation about the workflow to follow to keep the momentum and attract more people to the httpd doc project?
Good question. While we can tweak the process and perhaps rely more on github forks and pull requests, at the end of the day the solution is to increase the number of docs committers willing to review the reviews and commit the changes. The number of volunteer hours will always be a gating factor. All we can do is pay attention to careful contributors and extend commit invitations as appropriate, and ask those newly minted committers to also help with the process of incorporating other translations.
