On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Sayamindu Dasgupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am a bit confused. This is definitely a break in string freeze, and > yet, the patch mentions that string freeze is not affected. Was a > string freeze break approval asked for in this case ?
I think the idea was that it only *added* strings and didn't *modify* strings, so it shouldn't affect existing translations (we'd just have a few more untranslated strings)? But you're right, we should have an explicit 'strings signoff' step in the process. If nothing else, we should be justifying why we think these strings "don't need to be translated". We should probably have a 'last minute change' process written up as well, so that we always have (say) a specific one-week window at the end of the process for "nothing but translation changes" to allow translators a shot (at least) at catching up with the 'last minute' string changes. I hope in the 9.1 timeframe to be able to distribute updates to translations like activity updates are distributed, which ought to ease the pain somewhat. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net/ ) _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
