On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 16:46 +0300, Rūdolfs Mazurs wrote: > I don't think it would be good idea to base module death only on past > commits. Take galeon — it is rather actively translated, but Wikipedia > states it has been discontinued 3 years ago [1]. Even if we only > consider non-translation commits, there might be only bug fixes, that no > one wants to release.
25 commits in total in Galeon for the last two years: git log --after=2010-08-03 --pretty=oneline | wc -l 25 translation commits in Galeon in the last two years: git log --after=2010-08-03 --pretty=oneline -- po/ | wc -l => 25 - 25 = 0. No single code commit. > So we should ask maintainer, if [s]he believes, if the software > is to see next release, when there are suspicions of dying software. Yes, but this will require a lot of work, plus a careful wording, as “there's no point at which he [a maintainer] consciously realizes that he can no longer fulfill the duties of the role” (Karl Fogel: Producing Open Source Software, page 216). > On the other hand, there might be other software, that is useful and > being used, but not actively developed, which should see translation > update releases, even if there is no maintainer. Indeed a module can be small, well-defined, considered feature-complete, and very mature, so code changes are not needed. It does not necessarily have to be obsolete/deprecated/legacy just because there is no activity. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
