openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Do not drop languages in minor releases
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:57:42 GMT
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 04/29/2014 09:47 AM, schrieb jan i:
>
>> On 29 April 2014 09:36, J├╝rgen Schmidt<jogischmidt@gmail.com>  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 it
>>>>> 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%.

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.

Or some other way of having the local community take ownership of
making this decision.

-Rob


> Marcus
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message