Re: Anjuta modules

[Vincent van Adrighem <V vanAdrighem dirck mine nu>]

Op 26 Feb 2003 18:10:29 +0100 schreef Christian Rose
<menthos@menthos.com>:
[..] 
> 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.

Well, anjuta2 was going to be anjuta 4 gnome2. A complete rewrite /
merge with gIDE. As this is taking longer than expected, there were
people wanting a gnome2 version of anjuta1. And that's why they both
exist. The gnome2 port of anjuta is more important to the translators
because that project is almost _stable_ and already usable. The anjuta2
project doesn't seem to be that far.

> 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.

That seems to be the best choice right now. Anjuta2 is not ready for
primetime and anjuta1-gnome2 hasn't been given the translation-love it
needs.

I've removed the anjuta2 module for now. The focus should be on
anjuta1-gnome2.

Kind regards,
Vincent van Adrighem
-- 
Gpg-key: http://pki.surfnet.nl KeyID=0x06BAB003
Help mee met het vertalen van GNOME. Kijk op http://gnome-nl.sf.net/
voor meer info.

PGP signature