mån 2005-06-06 klockan 15:04 -0700 skrev Bryce Harrington:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
> > l?r 2005-06-04 klockan 19:44 -0700 skrev Bryce Harrington:
> > > Judging from http://l10n-status.gnome.org/gnome-2.12/index.html, GNOME
> > > has 52 languages that have translation ratios over 50%.
> > ...Sodipodi in GNOME CVS currently has translations into 41 languages,
> > whereas Inkscape has 33. Since I think Inkscape has become much more
> > wellknown than Sodipodi, I think an estimation of about 50 languages can
> > certainly be reasonable, given some time of course.
> > Essentially it is up to the teams to decide how they organize their
> > work. The first one that volunteers for translating into a particular
> > language gets to do that, and may become the coordinator for that
> > language if he or she does want that. Then we direct all further
> > volunteers for that language to get in contact with their coordinator
> > first -- we do not accept any translations without approval from the
> > coordinator for the affected language. This may sound harsh, but it
> > helps build up teams and get volunteers to cooperate in their teams, and
> > encourages some sort of peer review.
> > ...
> > From your description, it sounds like you are asking whether there would
> > be some way for us to synchronize po files with Inkscape, and
> > incorporating Inkscape into the GNOME Translation Project, without
> > Inkscape actually moving to GNOME CVS. The answer is simple: no.
> > The more verbose explanation for this is that we've tried this many
> > times in the past...
> It sounds like a very effective process. The GNOME Translation Project
> appears to do very good work, and it looks like Inkscape could
> potentially pick up perhaps 20 more language translations. I would
> really like to find a way to work together, because it sounds like it
> would be in all of our benefit.
> I spoke with several of the Inkscape developers, and unfortunately it
> seems there is not much interest in switching CVS providers. There
> would be strong interest in switching to a Gnome Subversion, though, if
> it becomes available. If we go through the process of changing
> sourcecode management systems, we'd like to do it just once, and going
> from CVS to CVS doesn't seem worth the trouble, even if it would
> eventually gain some more translators.
OK, it sounds like you've made up your mind now about this issue. I
won't argue with that, just clear up some points raised below.
> It sounds like many of our translators participate in both Inkscape and
> GTP already, so perhaps if having increased translations for Inkscape is
> important, in the interim before Subversion becomes available, you could
> make other translators aware of the need, and they could also choose to
> participate on a case by case basis if they wish.
...or we could wait until Inkscape finally has ended up in the GNOME
repository, when the issue will automatically be solved. ;)
> > Nothing is actually decided yet, and it is a sensitive decision that
> > must be handled by the community. However, I think most contributors are
> > supporting a change. The "only" thing that remains is making a formal
> > community decision, deciding what solution we want to move to.
> > Furthermore, key contributors have testified that they want to make sure
> > a decision actually gets made, so that a change can actually happen.
> Would you mind communicating Inkscape's interest in participating in
> this, if a decision is made and implemented? Also, if you could keep us
> informed of its progress that would probably help a lot.
Feel free to let the gnome-hackers@... list know that you would be
willing to move to the GNOME repository, if it would be using
Subversion. That's certainly relevant input to confirm that there
actually needs to be a change.
gnome-hackers is a special list in the sense that it is a strictly
moderated list, in order to reduce the amount of traffic and make sure
that only relevant mails get through. It's not open for general
subscription. The archives (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-
hackers/) are open though, and you can get all mails posted to the list
by subscribing to the gnome-hackers-readonly list
(http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers-readonly) if you
That way, you would also be automatically notified when there would be a
repository decision, I suspect.
> > But I don't see this as a reason not to switch now. The current
> > situation is no worse than what you have right now, and there will be a
> > change for something better in the future.
> Well, keep in mind that a change would be disruptive, impose new risks,
> and would take time and effort to go through.
> I'm not sure how we'd preserve CVS history.
Oh, that one is simple. You would basically only need to decide on a
date for the transition, hold off commits for a day or so, and then we'd
(which is regenerated at least daily, I think) into GNOME CVS. That way,
you would get all history preserved.
> It sounds like we'd lose some ability to ensure
> people get CVS access quickly.
Yes, it might take some days to have all accounts done.
> Developers would also have to redo their
> local trees and branches, to make them point at the new CVS. We don't
> know about the performance / stability of the Gnome CVS (we had problems
> with SourceForge early on, but things are much better today).
We've had no problems or complaints for the last year, at least not for
the master CVS repository. One of the anoncvs mirrors located elsewhere
in the world at one point got out of free disk space though, but that
was quickly resolved when the local admins were notified about the
problem. The other anoncvs mirrors still worked fine though.
> We'd have
> to revise cron jobs and scripts that currently work on the SF CVS. We
> have some tools like our document generator that run on the SF web
> server, which can *only* access SF CVS, that we'd have to either rewrite
> or lose.
> So you can see that switching to Gnome CVS would impose transition
> costs. Since we'll have to do all this work anyway when we move to
> Subversion, I think the general feeling is, why do this work twice, if
> we can simply wait until Subversion becomes available?
Yeah, yeah, I hear you. I just would have hoped the transition to happen
right now, instead of some (not yet decided) time in the future...
Ok, I'll shut up.