Am 04/29/2014 07:57 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
Am 04/29/2014 09:47 AM, schrieb jan i:
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.
However, from the view point of a normal user who just wants to update to
the next version, it would be confusing why no localized install file is
available anymore.
So, from my side a clear +1 to keep these languages.
How much we allow to be under 100% is just a question of definition (and
agreement). ;-)
We want quality releases. % translation is part of quality, of
course. But there are other aspects as well. Certainly looking at %
completeness is easy for to measure, but it is not necessarily the
best criterion.
We want to avoid a situation where a translation is rushed and done
poorly, in order to meet an arbitrary % goal. I'd rather have a high
quality 95% than a low quality 100%.
You should have replied to my other mail. ;-) It seems we have the same
direction of the vision.
Of course, PMC members do not know all languages. So we need to rely
on the translators and the local community. Maybe we can make a
criterion from that?
For example:
If a translation is more than X% complete, AND if that language was
downloaded in the beta release more than Y times, AND the RC was
reviewed by the translator and Z other community members to vouch for
having usable level of quality, then we include it in a release.
Yes, sounds good.
Or some other way of having the local community take ownership of
making this decision.
What about to include another AND:
AND ZZ the language has recent activity on Pootle.
Even when the language is a bit far away from 100%, with activity on
Pootle we can be sure (somehow) that the language is maintained.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
