Ok, no.wordpress.org is gone, replaced by nb.wordpress.org (in addition to nn.wordpress.org). Peter and Eivind can manage it, at nb.wordpress.org/wp-admin
All good? Z On 16 June 2010 00:30, Eivind <[email protected]> wrote: > --- Den ons 2010-06-16 skrev José Fontainhas <[email protected]>: > >> Fra: José Fontainhas <[email protected]> >> Emne: NO, NN and NB (was: How does it work?) >> Til: [email protected], [email protected] >> Dato: Onsdag 16. juni 2010 00.54 >> > I'd also like access to >> no.wordpress.org, if possible. >> >> Ok, .org username? > > meinmycell > >> I can do that, but there really is no need to use svn for >> that. Twenty >> Ten's translations live in GlotPress now, and are used when >> building >> the locale releases > > OK. Then I don't need SVN - one thing less to worry about :-) However, I > would need to be set up as Glotpress validator for nn_NO, please. > >> > As the coordinators for some reason have chosen to set >> up locale sites this way, >> >> Whatever is done, usually has a reason, or several: >> http://lists.automattic.com/pipermail/wp-polyglots/2010-June/004546.html > > My point exactly. I feel no need to quote myself. The individual languages > are universally recognised as nb and nn, not no and nn: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-1_codes > >> Yes, I agree it is important. However given the proximity >> of 3.0 and >> the intricacies which will inevitably result on the logic >> of linking >> repositories and the GlotPress configuration to such a >> setup, the >> priorities, at this time, reside elsewhere, as explained >> before: >> http://lists.automattic.com/pipermail/wp-polyglots/2010-June/004628.html > > The time constraints and other considerations are perfectly well understood. > However, out from > http://lists.automattic.com/pipermail/wp-polyglots/2010-June/004546.html , I > interpret that nb. and nn. would be used until both could be served at no. > When two sites had to be created, they should follow the name of the > individual locales. > >> It's fine by me, if the original requesters agree with you, >> sure. We >> didn't produce 'no' out of a magician's hat. > > No, it was produced out of a request that I later commented. > >> The whole >> previous >> discussion illustrates how we got there. > > Yes, only I can't see that the outcome is what we had agreed upon. > > Back to Petter, then: I never agreed that no.wordpress.org would be used for > nb alone. We both agreed that no. should be used to host both, not just one > of them. > > I request that no.wordpress.org be moved to nb.wordpress.org until a > permanent no.wordpress.org solution can be established, as discussed earlier. > > > Eivind Ødegård > > > _______________________________________________ > wp-polyglots mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-polyglots > _______________________________________________ wp-polyglots mailing list [email protected] http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-polyglots
