Re: GNOME Moduleset Reorganization vs. L10N

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:02 AM, daniel g. siegel <dgsiegel gnome org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
>> Hi!
>> > As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
>> > everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
>> > outside of don't always feel comfortable with raw
>> > commits to their VCS (security, noise in the vcs history etc). Whether
>> > translations should be committed directly to a repo is a big
>> > discussion, and I believe maintainers are the ones with the final word
>> > on this.
>> Well, we are currently defining the requirements for modules not hosted
>> on (if we allow them at all). If people are so keen on not
>> hosting on they will probably have to allow automatic
>> commits.
> it would be interesting to know _why_ some modules do not like to be
> hosted on knowing that would make it so much easier to find
> the best way for all of us.

I think this has been well-covered in the past.  The typical example
is Launchpad, which offers a lot more features in project hosting than
we do.  Projects get used to using things like blueprints, answers,
integrated PPAs, etc.

I'm not a fan myself, but I can see how once a project was already
hooked on a Launchpad-oriented process, it would be work to migrate to
GNOME infrastructure.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]