Re: Anjuta modules

[Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>]

ons 2003-02-26 klockan 17.07 skrev Vincent van Adrighem:
> > > Actually, anjuta is being ported to GNOME2 actively. The faq is
> > > little old and has been updated. The gnome2 port of anjuta certainly
> > > requires translation.
> > 
> > So why do we need to translate both anjuta2 and anjuta?
> 
> The same reason why we need translations for evolution and balsa.

Evolution and balsa are clearly different projects with different names
and different development teams and different pieces of software
altogether.


> They are separate projects. Anjuta is the IDE for gnome2, anjuta2 is a
> new and completely different project.
> It uses a completely different codebase and approach.

So it's a fork/rewite by a different team? Then I hope the person that
came up with the name "anjuta2" has been appropriately punished, since
it gives the impression that it's a newer version of anjuta and not an
entirely different project. A recipe for confusion.

Even more complicated is that Naba seems to be the maintainer of both
projects, mentioned in AUTHORS/MAINTAINERS in both, and also on both
http://www.gnome.org/projects/devtools/gide.shtml and
http://www.gnome.org/projects/devtools/anjuta.shtml...

If anjuta2 is some sort of fork/rewrite, then we should be careful with
it, and wait to see how things turn out before having translators spend
an awful lot of resources into it.

We already have a similar situation with rhythmbox/netrhytmbox, where
netrhythmbox is a fork of rhythmbox by another developer. We don't have
netrhythmbox on the status pages though, since it may very well be
temporary and translators aren't helped by having to update two
translations in parallel. It's much easier to port/update the
translation though should one of the different projects become more
previvalent. And the similar names aren't helping either -- we can't
expect translators to know the backgrounds of the projects and know
which one of the similar pieces of software with nearly identical names
that he or she should update.

So right now I'm of the strong opinion that we should probably only
include anjuta on the status pages (similar to what we already do with
rhythmbox) until the projects merge, development on one of them
stagnates, or one of them is renamed so that there isn't any name
confusion any longer.


Christian