Re: gok string freeze breakage

[Bill Haneman <Bill Haneman Sun COM>]

> Judging from these answers, we're still in UI freeze, and traditionally,
> UI freeze and string freeze have been closely related. From Jeff's mail,
> however, it seems you have green light for fixing bugs that are of the
> "previously used message that wasn't gettextified" kind and typos.
> However, you still need to notify the translators. That didn't happen in
> this case; translators weren't told anything at all.
> 
> Also, new features and new strings are banned. Judging from the diff in
> this case, many new strings were added, and it's not immediately clear
> that they would be a simple bug fix.

I explained in another email why the new strings are necessary.  With
the exception of two warning messages (in service of a reported crasher
bug),  the commits we are doing are in direct service of GOK
internationalization.  I don't think we want to wait until 2.6 for GOK's
translations to be useful; though it's translated into 34 languages, its
internationalization issues mean that GOK is in fact not yet useful in
those locales.

I have always taken internationalization fixes to be quite different
from other kinds of features; since 2.4.X is in part about localization
improvements.  This is the background for the GOK changes: our commits
to HEAD have so far been limited to bugfixes and
internationalization-related refactors.  The internationalization issues
are requiring the addition of new strings since the previous back-end
implementation for some features was not internationalizable.

So, the general question is (though I accept that we may need to ask the
specific questions on a case-by-case basis) whether internationalization
fixes for GOK must wait for 2.6.  If not, then some string freeze
breakage will be required.

best regards,

Bill

> So to me, it was a pretty clear-cut case. Im sorry if you feel offended
> by the boilerplate freeze breakage mail, but I'm a strong believer in
> being fair and treating everyone by the same standards.
> 
> That being said, thanks for reverting these messages for now.
> 
> 
> Christian
> 
>