<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/7/9 Leo Franchi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lfranchi@kde.org">lfranchi@kde.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On 9 Jul 2009, at 02:08, Ian Monroe wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
2009/7/8 Andrius Štikonas <<a href="mailto:stikonas@gmail.com" target="_blank">stikonas@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
yeah.. it was mentioned and got lost in the noise I guess. or maybe it was<br>
that the po files are staying in svn for however long the translators stay<br>
there.<br>
in any case, we have pre-commit hooks and they're important and the<br>
gitorious<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
guys said they'll make it possible to add them.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Git offers many benefits to translators too. Now ordinary translators do not<br>
have any commit access at all<br>
and they send their translations to maintainer and maintainer uploads large<br>
commits that are hard to review.<br>
<br>
With git it is possible to use workflow where every translator can commit to<br>
some git repository and later translation maintainer pushes translations<br>
into main repo. This workflow allows better review of translations by<br>
ordinary translators<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yea I agree, that makes a lot of sense, but given that translators had<br>
more issues with the cvs->svn transition (according to conventional<br>
wisdom) I really like the idea of translators moving or not moving to<br>
Git on their own schedule and not one imposed by the likes of us.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
The translators have stated their complete non-desire to deal with switching to Git right now---our goal is to make this as faultless a transition as possible, and this includes not making the translators want to kill us. So we're not going to change their workflow underneath their feet :)<br>
<br>
leo<br>
<br>
---<br>
Leo Franchi (650) 704 3680<br>
Tufts University 2010<br>
<br>
<a href="mailto:lfranchi@kde.org" target="_blank">lfranchi@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="mailto:leonardo.franchi@tufts.edu" target="_blank">leonardo.franchi@tufts.edu</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Ok, let's leave translations in svn for now. But later we can do the same thing for translations that is being done for software repositories: migrate only one or two teams to find all rough edges (for example Lithuanian team will be willing to test) while all other teams remain in svn. After that, migration for other teams should be relatively painless.<div>
<br></div><div>Since we had large cvs and svn repositories that contained all modules, such testing with 1 or 2 teams was not possible with cvs->svn migration.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Andrius Štikonas<br>
</div>