On 30/10/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
However, if we want to have a beta release of these lang packs, then
this is not hard either:
1) Checked the PO files into the 3.4.x branch
2) Verify that they have correct license headers (assuming PO files
allow a license header)
3) Generate a source package as a
On 11/1/12 10:09 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
On 31/10/2012 jan iversen wrote:
Ok, I thought team meant language teams. But I have searched the
Wiki and
cannot find any documentation on the required QA procedure relating to
national languages.
Can it be, that it was never really defined and
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
I do not understand the release discussion assuming juergen is right. why
don't we ask each team to send a mail confirming they have made QA then we
would release the language packs officially (at least this time)
this would also give us time to discuss the ideal situation.
juergen: you will
On 10/31/12 12:18 PM, jan iversen wrote:
I do not understand the release discussion assuming juergen is right.
or I have misunderstand your question ;-) I think we as AOO can define
how we do QQ and how we want to ensure the quality of our releases.
Besides the functional aspects here we have
Ok, I thought team meant language teams. But I have searched the Wiki and
cannot find any documentation on the required QA procedure relating to
national languages.
Can it be, that it was never really defined and written down ??
For code, there seems to be guidelines, but also no real definition
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
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:
...
+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
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
Question: Is there a rule in the apache way defining who can do QA, or is
it totally up to the single teams ?
Do we use the review statistic in pootle to anything, it seems actually
quite clever.
Jan.
On 30 October 2012 16:17, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/30/12 2:46 PM,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:17 AM, 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
Hi
Speaking for myself and the other 2 in the teamwe do the translation to
get AOO available in denmark (again).
Right now another openSource product is using the fact that we cannot
release our versions in danish, to their benefit.
I do not want to compete (which is why I do not write the
On 26/10/2012 jan iversen wrote:
On 26 October 2012 19:43, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
- Releasing a new language is totally risk-free: a new language can't
break functionality in OpenOffice, while any feature could have bugs and
needs more qualified testing.
I do not agree to that statement for
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
It is now clear that, thanks to new volunteers now coordinating on ooo-l10n,
we will soon be in a position to add 3-5 new languages to Apache OpenOffice.
It is also clear that at the moment we have no demand for a
Rob Weir wrote:
1) release new languages via lang packs only for now
2) release full installs, but for only these new languages
I don't see a big difference between a langpack and a full install in
this case, so I'd go for full installs, unless releasing langpacks helps
in communicating that
just two small comments.
have a nice weekend.
Jan.
On 26 October 2012 19:43, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote:
Rob Weir wrote:
1) release new languages via lang packs only for now
2) release full installs, but for only these new languages
I don't see a big difference between a
Am 10/26/2012 07:43 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Rob Weir wrote:
1) release new languages via lang packs only for now
2) release full installs, but for only these new languages
I don't see a big difference between a langpack and a full install in
this case, so I'd go for full installs, unless
On 26 October 2012 23:06, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 10/26/2012 07:43 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Rob Weir wrote:
1) release new languages via lang packs only for now
2) release full installs, but for only these new languages
I don't see a big difference between a
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 10/26/2012 07:43 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Rob Weir wrote:
1) release new languages via lang packs only for now
2) release full installs, but for only these new languages
I don't see a big difference between a
Am 10/26/2012 11:20 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
On 26 October 2012 23:06, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 10/26/2012 07:43 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Rob Weir wrote:
1) release new languages via lang packs only for now
2) release full installs, but for only these new languages
On 26 October 2012 23:38, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 10/26/2012 11:20 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
On 26 October 2012 23:06, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 10/26/2012 07:43 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Rob Weir wrote:
1) release new languages via lang
Am 10/26/2012 11:35 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 10/26/2012 07:43 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Rob Weir wrote:
1) release new languages via lang packs only for now
2) release full installs, but for only these new
Am 10/26/2012 11:46 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
On 26 October 2012 23:38, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 10/26/2012 11:20 PM, schrieb jan iversen:
On 26 October 2012 23:06, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 10/26/2012 07:43 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Rob Weir
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
+1, being a non-native english speakng person, I want to ensure that we
keep the AOO stability in language versions and not just see them as nice
to have add-on !!
jan
On 27 October 2012 01:48, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti 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
27 matches
Mail list logo
