openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Do not drop languages in minor releases
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:28:05 GMT
Am 04/29/2014 07:57 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Marcus (OOo)<>  wrote:
>> Am 04/29/2014 09:47 AM, schrieb jan i:
>>> On 29 April 2014 09:36, Jürgen Schmidt<>   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
>>>>>> 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.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message