Re: Do NOT commit executable po files!

[Dafydd Harries <daf parnassus ath cx>]

Ar Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:21:29AM +0100, ysgrifennodd Christian Rose:
> But we don't have that with GNOME CVS, I think at least partly because
> the current CVS server wouldn't cope with it, but also because many
> (including me) have the opinion that we should not be overly restrictive
> with people's accounts, so that people can easily contribute in other
> areas. If, as an example, a person that was originally only a translator
> would want to contribute simple bug fixes (after getting the necessary
> spoken permission from the module maintainer though!), then he or she
> should not have to also go through some other bureacracy to technically
> be able to commit other things than po files.

This has happened to me. I have been able to commit
non-translation-related fixes directly to CVS (having obtained
permission first, of course) and spared somebody else the trouble of
doing it.

> But this adds many responsibilities to committing translators:
> 
> * They need to make sure on their own that they are only committing a
> translation (unless they have approval for something else)
> * They need to make sure on their own that they are only committing a
> translation for their own team (unless they have approval for something
> else)
> * They need to make sure on their own that they have approval from their
> own team in committing that translation (unless they have approval for
> something else)
> * They need to make sure on their own that the committed translation is
> properly encoded in UTF-8
> * They need to make sure on their own that the committed translation is
> valid and passes the msgfmt test
> * They need to make sure on their own that the committed translation
> does not have executable permissions
> * They need to make sure on their own that they've added proper
> ChangeLog entries
> ..etc.

Looking at this from another point of view, translators doing these
tasks and checks means that someone or something else doesn't have to do
them.

> Many of these things could be automated with ACL:s and the proper
> automated checks, but I'm not sure we'd want that. Instead, we probably
> want people that understand what responsibilites they have when they've
> recieved a cvs account.

Absolutely.

> > or having a script running daily/weekly
> > which would do a chmod a-x on all po files ?
> 
> What about packages released in the mean time? The goal is to keep CVS
> buildable at all times, so all committers have the responsibility to
> check that they don't break anything so that things don't build. I think
> this should certainly also apply to things being properly packable.

And besides, that would be fixing the symptoms rather than the problem
itself. If it's fixed automatically, people won't learn not to do it.

-- 
Dafydd