Re: R-T doesn't care about i18n? (was: Problem with committing to gnome-screensaver)
El jue, 12-02-2009 a las 12:30 +0100, Luca Ferretti escribió: > [1] but little shocked for recent "I'm myself and I don't care about > GNOME community rules" events :( I think the most important thing to learn from these "events" is that when you delay a community-based decision so long, people start making decision on their own and moving forward. It is completely understandable that some maintainers may get tired of waiting for a decision from the community and simply decide what they think it's best for their own projects, even if this may eventually hurt other parts of the process. If we as a community can't agree on something like this and move forward, we will be facing the risk of fragmentation over and over again. Let's not allow this to happen and let's make a decision soon. Claudio -- Claudio Saavedra ___ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list Gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: R-T doesn't care about i18n? (was: Problem with committing to gnome-screensaver)
On 2/12/09, Luca Ferretti wrote: > Il giorno mer, 11/02/2009 alle 09.44 -0500, William Jon McCann ha > scritto: > > When we move to git immediately after 2.26.0 I trust that everyone > > will be informed and ready to tackle the workflow changes that result. > > I suggest that instead of continuing this conversation we focus on > > making sure we're ready. > > William, sorry if this could appear a blackmail, but IMHO this plan of > you is very un-polite for all GNOME community, so I think if you will > move gnome-screensaver to git *before* the DVCS decision (if I'm right > by now git is only an option, not the final choice) I'll ask to remove > it from the list of GNOME Desktop modules. > > In the past years we have hard worked in order to have *all* *official* > GNOME Desktop & Platform modules stored on the same repository (see for > example mousetweaks or hamster-applet), not only for translators' sake, > but for entire GNOME community. > > Do you like git? OK, *by now* it's a *your* choice, not a *community* > choice. Start to develop on a separate, private git tree and frequently > update the official module on svn, like the empathy team is currently > doing. > > Respectfully[1] , Luca. > > [1] but little shocked for recent "I'm myself and I don't care about > GNOME community rules" events :( Reading up on this heated thread, here's my take on it. There are some non-arguable fundamental facts about any free software development. One of the most fundamental facts is this: 1) The maintainer of a project/module may do whatever he likes with it. However, there have always been some fundamental requirements we (the GNOME Translation Project) have required from modules officially included in GNOME. I don't know if they have been encarved into stone or sent out into space yet, but anyone who has ever followed GNOME release engineering and new module discussions closely, should be familiar with them. Some of the requirements include: 2) Translators with an account should have access to all modules officially part of GNOME. 3) All modules officially part of GNOME should be kept in *the same* GNOME repository. That last one is equally important. GNOME translators translate several hundreds of modules, and many translators need quick access to many, many of those modules on a daily basis in order to update translations. Using and remembering different workflows for each and every one of the modules would be a nightmare, so we require the workflow be the same for each module (with some extremely few exceptions for directory layout in some exceptional modules). But the "one repository" requirement has always been the same. The "one repository to rule them all" used to be cvs.gnome.org, now it is svn.gnome.org, and maybe in the not too distant future it will be git.gnome.org. However, the change to a git.gnome.org would require a Release Team decision on which DVCS GNOME should use, and a planned cutover date for the *whole* repository. The planned cutover date is because we would need to communicate the change, and carefully update all scripts and documentation, in time for the cutover date. *All* modules would need to be migrated at the same date, otherwise we have a script/documentation nightmare. Of course most of this situation is the same for the GNOME Documentation Project. So until the Release Team has decided on a DVCS for *all* of GNOME, and has announced a planned cutover date, and the cutover has happened, *no* core GNOME module should be removed from, or closed for commits, on svn.gnome.org. If a module maintainer wants to use a different repo in the mean time, fine, but then a requirement would be that they automatically sync *all* the changes in the module both back and forward with svn.gnome.org in the mean time. Unless you can reliably do all that synchronization automatically, you are *not* allowed to move. I have all the respect for module maintainers and their freedom to do whatever they like with their module. But at the same time, being "part of GNOME" is a stamp of approval of which there follows some real hard requirements, both in terms of software but also in release engineering and version control. So, if some core GNOME module "jumps the gun" and switches to a repository other than svn.gnome.org before the date of the Release Team mandated big project-wide repository cutover for all of GNOME, I would formally request of the Release Team to immediately *remove* that module/project from the list of software included in GNOME. Period. This is of course all speaking with my formal "GNOME Translation Project Spokesperson" hat on. Christian ___ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list Gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: R-T doesn't care about i18n? (was: Problem with committing to gnome-screensaver)
Il giorno mer, 11/02/2009 alle 09.44 -0500, William Jon McCann ha scritto: > When we move to git immediately after 2.26.0 I trust that everyone > will be informed and ready to tackle the workflow changes that result. > I suggest that instead of continuing this conversation we focus on > making sure we're ready. William, sorry if this could appear a blackmail, but IMHO this plan of you is very un-polite for all GNOME community, so I think if you will move gnome-screensaver to git *before* the DVCS decision (if I'm right by now git is only an option, not the final choice) I'll ask to remove it from the list of GNOME Desktop modules. In the past years we have hard worked in order to have *all* *official* GNOME Desktop & Platform modules stored on the same repository (see for example mousetweaks or hamster-applet), not only for translators' sake, but for entire GNOME community. Do you like git? OK, *by now* it's a *your* choice, not a *community* choice. Start to develop on a separate, private git tree and frequently update the official module on svn, like the empathy team is currently doing. Respectfully[1] , Luca. [1] but little shocked for recent "I'm myself and I don't care about GNOME community rules" events :( ___ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list Gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: R-T doesn't care about i18n? (was: Problem with committing to gnome-screensaver)
Am Mittwoch, den 11.02.2009, 12:49 +0100 schrieb Wouter Bolsterlee: > That said, I'd like to see these questions answered: > > 1. Did you speak for yourself, or did you speak on behalf of the release >team when you were making this totally objectionable statement? > > 2. What do other release team members think about this? Is this the new >policy? If so, who decided this? Is this documented somewhere? This is currently not the position of the entire release-team (though the "This" is a very interpretable term here, and I do use the word "currently" by purpose). A workflow for translators should be defined and documented before core GNOME modules with translatable strings move to any potential new vcs system, but this has been internally discussed already... andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list Gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: R-T doesn't care about i18n? (was: Problem with committing to gnome-screensaver)
Hey, On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote: > Matthias, > > I found it quite shocking to hear a statement like this from a member of the > release team: > > 2009-02-11 klockan 02:19 skrev Matthias Clasen: >> Clearly, $maintainer can do whatever he wants with $project. Its his code, >> and he is the maintainer. If that means translators have a some >> difficulties, and $project may be less perfectly translated than it used >> to, thats unfortunate. > > It almost looks like you don't seem to care about i18n at all. Gnome is for > all people, and not all people speak English. i18n has always been a strong > focus of the Gnome project, and I hope this will stay the same in the > future. > > That said, I'd like to see these questions answered: > > 1. Did you speak for yourself, or did you speak on behalf of the release > team when you were making this totally objectionable statement? > > 2. What do other release team members think about this? Is this the new > policy? If so, who decided this? Is this documented somewhere? > > I hereby invite other release team members to share their opinion in this > thread. I don't think there is any need to get hysterical. It seems to me that what Matthias says is true. I am free to do (almost) anything I want with my project. However, because of the beauty of our license - so are you! Some reasons that I agreed to move gnome-screensaver to git included: translators would still have ssh access to commit, there was already a git guide for translators on the wiki/web. However, after I was told that translators weren't prepared to make this adjustment and faced with the prospect of doing more work to manually merge translations into git myself, I agreed to move back to svn. When we move to git immediately after 2.26.0 I trust that everyone will be informed and ready to tackle the workflow changes that result. I suggest that instead of continuing this conversation we focus on making sure we're ready. Thanks, Jon ___ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list Gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: R-T doesn't care about i18n? (was: Problem with committing to gnome-screensaver)
Le mercredi 11 février 2009, à 12:49 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee a écrit : > 2. What do other release team members think about this? Is this the new >policy? If so, who decided this? Is this documented somewhere? Wouter: if you read the whole thread, you can see that there are other release team people with a different (and strong) opinion. (also, I think the initial issue is more or less closed now -- can we remove some cc in replies?) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list Gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: R-T doesn't care about i18n? (was: Problem with committing to gnome-screensaver)
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Wouter Bolsterlee > > 1. Did you speak for yourself, or did you speak on behalf of the release > team when you were making this totally objectionable statement? I always speak for myself, unless I make a release team announcement. I haven't given up my rights to voicing an opinion when I agreed to help out with release team work. ___ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list Gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: R-T doesn't care about i18n? (was: Problem with committing to gnome-screensaver)
Hi! > 2009-02-11 klockan 02:19 skrev Matthias Clasen: > > Clearly, $maintainer can do whatever he wants with $project. Its his code, > > and he is the maintainer. If that means translators have a some > > difficulties, and $project may be less perfectly translated than it used > > to, thats unfortunate. Well, that true for any projects except those with are part of GNOME because they have to at least follow http://live.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/ModuleRequirements This does not include being in GNOME SVN though if you read back all proposals on the desktop-devel-list you will see that this was always required for any new module. Regards, Johannes signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil ___ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list Gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
