On 29 April 2014 09:36, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/14 9:20 AM, Tal Daniel wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 29, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > > >> I propose that, once a language reaches our release quality criteria > >> (currently: UI translation at 100% and maintained), we do not drop it > >> afterwards for the other minor releases. > >> > >> [...] I would remove unmaintained languages only when version 5.0 comes. > >> > > > > Seems reasonable, to me, Andrea, I'm not sure that removing a language on > > major release should be so strict. What about removing a language only > when > > a MINIMUM% of it isn't translated (e.g., 10%)? > > > > we had something like this before but defined a new rule to be 100% UI > complete and I think this is quite easy and a good rule. > > The case Andrea described above should be more theoretical if an active > community is behind a translation. We released Arabic with 3.4 but there > was no active community and nothing happened later on. > > I would still prefer the 100% rule. But anyway it's my personal opinion. > +1, not requiring 100% UI (which is quite easy to do for any translator) is a dangerous path. Nobody can today say when we do the next major release (5.x) meaning translations < 100% could be ongoing for a long period. For a minor release, its typically only a handful of messages that are changed, so it not a big workload for any individual. rgds jan I > > Juergen > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
