I think this topic becomes confusing because too much "nested".
So In short, Nick Kew suggested to simplify the review process in these
terms :
"I wonder if the review process might be a bit over-bureaucratic for a
language where
translators are thin on the ground? Perhaps we could accept unr
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:43 AM Lucien Gentis
wrote:
>
> I think this topic becomes confusing because too much "nested".
>
> So In short, Nick Kew suggested to simplify the review process in these
> terms :
>
> "I wonder if the review process might be a bit over-bureaucratic for a
> language where
@Lucien
> I can't commit your file since it has been reviewed.
I think you mean:
> ... has not been reviewed.
Ok, yes I understand the rules.
> ... we are discussing about a solution to simplify the review process ...
Yes. This is very interesting. :)
@doc
One thought: why not keep in the reposi
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:39:03 +0200
Pavel Vecherin wrote:
> @doc
> One thought: why not keep in the repository translations that require
> review by filename,
> for example "name-based.xml.ru.need_review".
+1 to some such approach. Needs thought on implementation.
> And some script (or page) th
Le 14/10/2020 à 13:56, Eric Covener a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 7:43 AM Lucien Gentis
wrote:
I think this topic becomes confusing because too much "nested".
So In short, Nick Kew suggested to simplify the review process in these
terms :
"I wonder if the review process might be a bit o
Le 14/10/2020 à 17:09, Nick Kew a écrit :
On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 15:39:03 +0200
Pavel Vecherin wrote:
@doc
One thought: why not keep in the repository translations that require
review by filename,
for example "name-based.xml.ru.need_review".
+1 to some such approach. Needs thought on implemen
