On 10/30/12 4:22 PM, jan iversen wrote: > Question: Is there a rule in "the apache way" defining who can do QA, or is > it totally up to the single teams ?
It's up to the teams I think > > Do we use the "review statistic" in pootle to anything, it seems actually > quite clever. we don't make use of it right now and I have to confess that I haven't really looked in it yet because of the lack of time. Juergen > > Jan. > > On 30 October 2012 16:17, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, 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. >>>> >>> >>> Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and >>> still require that we go through a release vote. >>> >>> Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process? It isn't that hard. >>> And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the >>> "Apache" label on software we make available to the public. >> >> I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain >> level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway. >> >> Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it. >> If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if >> possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only >> the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine >> with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space. >> >> Juergen >> >> >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> >>>> Regards >>>> Ricardo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Rob >>>>>> >>>>>>> -Rob >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >
