Hi! > GNOME 3.0 came and went, and i18n seemed to never be a goal of GNOME > 3.0. I'm hoping things can improve in future releases, so I'm trying to > follow up on some bugs that affect i18n that I have reported before > which haven't received attention yet. Well, that's not true, i18n was and is always a core feature for GNOME. > In which cases are we allowed to fix i18n issues or other errors in the > source text ourselves? Even in a case with a patch supplied in Bugzilla > I'm not necessarily getting a response. Of course everybody is busy, but > it seems that some i18n issues are simply ignored while other things are > getting attention, so I'm wondering to what extent we can still count on > good i18n being an important project goal and hold developers to it just > as we can for usability, security or other important issues. You may ask on #gnome-shell if they are fine with you fixing string issues (plurals, typos, etc.). Normally that shouldn't be a big deal as long as you only touch strings and no source code. But better ask because people might be unhappy with commits by random people. Regards, Johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part