My suggestion is that all of this "busy" work is highly automatable, but I'm sure he has a greater ability to assess the complexities of this work than I do.
In general I feel that we should be thinking about "how would we make this work" instead of "why should we not do this". - Trevor On Mar 22, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Max Semenik wrote: > On 22.03.2011, 18:08 Trevor wrote: > >> Your objections seem to be based on the assumption that you would >> need to have push access to all repositories, but I think that's the >> point of DCVS, you can just fork them, and then people can pull your >> changes in themselves (or using a tool). Pull requests could even be >> generated when things are out of sync. > >> I think it's quite possible this could make i18n/L10n work easier, not more >> difficult. > > You seem to miss Siebrand's point: curerently, all localisation > updates take one commit per day. Splitting stuff to separate repos > will result in up to 400 commits per day that will also need to be pushed > and reintegrated - an epic waste of time and common sense. Or > localisation will simply lie aside in forks and people will miss them > when checking out from the "official" source. > > -- > Best regards, > Max Semenik ([[User:MaxSem]]) > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
