Hi, > Von: Mathias Bauer <[email protected]>
> > Why another CWS? Couldn't we use the same? And if we did it with > Mercurial instead of svn it would be easy to handle: provide a > repository on services.openoffice.org that everybody can clone and where > changes could be pushed to. "Translators" are not developers. So the people who translate normally have no idea how a source repository works, how they would clone this ... many (if not most) translators don't even know how their translations make their way into the final product (it is not really important to translators, as long as the translation *makes* the way into the builds). I'd guess most of our developers even don't have an idea, what our translation workflow looks like. The other problem with such a CWS would be, that ~100 people would contribute to this cws. Although this might be technical possible, I'd guess this is not "our normal way" to handle CWSes. > BTW: that's how I would recommend to work in future anyway. But YMMV. Yes - we should change the way we we work with translations ... but I don't think, we would gain much, if translators would directly contribute to a CWS. André PS: If you like and have time, I'm in Hamburg next Thursday. I'd be happy to have a beer in the evening somewhere ;) -- Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
