On 8/14/05, Mark McLoughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 15:57 +0200, Danilo Šegan wrote: > > Today at 13:48, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > > All I'm really saying is that I don't think the hard string freeze was > > > in effect when this change was approved or committed. > > > > And all I'm saying is that I disagree. But it doesn't matter much > > now, we shouldn't make a big fuss out of it since it's already > > approved (precisely for the reason that we're *early* in the string > > freeze). There is some merit in the claim that freeze only starts > > after the tarball is released, but it's unpractical to make it that > > (for explained reasons: tracking 69 modules is simply too much). And > > according to schedule, tarballs should have been ready by 8th, so we > > are already using that as a guideline. > > Okay, probably the best way to make it less confusing for translators > is to say that the freeze kicks in after the release - i.e. in this case > it would have been the 11th. Sound reasonable?
I had thought of freezes and releases the same way Mark does (occurs when release is made, at latest the Wednesday specified in the schedule; translators would just pick "after Wednesday" if they wanted something simple and consistent). I do see how it wasn't very clear, though (the schedule itself is confusing as it spreads the freeze begins message over 3 days; well, except for hard code freeze that occurs on a Monday because there's no associated release). Probably yet another thing that we need to document better. That and what "after Wednesday" means (start of Thursday for Australia? for Hawaii?) I should start throwing all this stuff that needs to be documented into a list somewhere... Elijah
_______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
