+1, such a download page "additional untested language packs" would allow us to make a translation official immediately with a limited responsibility, just like the snapshots.
jan On 30 October 2012 14:02, RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > >
