[Reporting a discussion happened on IRC] 2016-10-19 15:24 GMT+02:00 Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com>: > > > * We have translations that are grossly out of date. We should drop > them. It remains only to define what "tool old" means? If a translation > hasn't been touched since 2.4.0, I would recommend dropping it. Discussion? >
I would take it a bit further and keep only a few languages supported, line en-fr-es. It takes a lot of work just to keep en up to date and in sync with users' expectations and new features/fix of httpd, keeping out-of-sync or stale documentations is misleading and not really useful imho. > > * It also occurs to me that we should make specific recommendations of > which docs should be translated first. For example, I think that the > "Getting Started" doc, and the "HowTo" docs, would be good places to > start, while the module docs, being more about technical detail and > having a less conversational style, would come later. > +1 > > * All of this hinges on actually getting translators. It *seems* that > this used to be easier, but lately we have really stunk at attracting > new translators. I think that this might be because our review process > is so rigorous, and it's hard to find reviewers. But for certain > languages (Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, Russian) it would seem > that we have an enormous pool of users to draw from. Perhaps time to do > some recruiting on users@? I believe we should first address the above > items, though, so that they're coming into a well-documented encouraging > environment, rather than picking up a lot of abandoned partially > translated things. Indeed, it might be good to go ahead and drop entire > languages from trunk, so that a new translator has a clean slate to work > with. I know I find that less frustrating, myself. > Again +1 to drop languages and restart from scratch if we find translators. Thanks a lot! Luca
