2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> > On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > >>>> ... it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, > since we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different > platforms). > >>> > >>> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source > releases. Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think that the > practice is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a > different bar. It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we > do need to VOTE on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a > certain level of trust for the packager and translations. > >>> > >> > >> But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries > >> depend on, where that source is from this project. > >> > >> It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of > >> existing source packages. But we're not. > >> > >> We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources > >> are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to > >> build the localized binaries. No downstream consumer of the source > >> will be able to build these localizations without having access to the > >> translated resources. Therefore these resources should be reviewed, > >> voted on and released. > >> > >> Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works, > >> translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the > >> help files. They are under copyright and made available under > >> license. So we need to do our due diligence via the release process > >> before we distribute such materials. > >> > > > > Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source > > and binary form". The issues are the same. > > > > Remember, the source package is canonical. I'm surprised to hear talk > > now of releasing only binaries. > > > > I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to > make new translations available as soon as possible. > > What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based > on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked > in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical > security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included > automatically. > > The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are > not officially released and are available via the snapshot page. > > When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can > probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product > version but based on a new revision number including the new translations. > > Juergen >
+1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to "additional untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being prepared for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something like that. Regards Ricardo > > > > > > > -Rob > > > >> -Rob > >> > >>> Regards, > >>> Dave > >
