Re: gnome-applets string freeze breakage

[Davyd Madeley <davyd bridgewayconsulting com au>]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 08:42:42PM +0200, Christian Rose wrote:

> > While Ryan should have informed the i18n teams that he had added a
> > string, it's partially my fault for not informing him he had to do
> > so (or simply doing it myself).
> 
> Not only should translators have been informed; you should also have
> requested advance approval for breaking the freeze (see
> http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/tasks.html#ApprovingFreezeBreaks).
> GNOME 2.10 is in string freeze, and will forever continue to be so.
> Nothing has changed in that respect.

> > The priority of this string is very
> > low (ie. you should never see it), it was added because in the
> > current tree it would simply fail silently. We were also in a rush
> > to get it backported and to try and get some testing before next
> > week's release.
> 
> What I don't understand is why this fix (the added error message) is
> considered important enough to be in the same patch as the memory leak
> and location name i18n fixes.
> If this error message is not at all important, then why is it in the
> same patch with a lot of crucial fixes? It appears that this situation
> would have been more manageable if the fixes were seperated into several
> patches that could have been prioritized differently. To me, it seems
> like the only reason this added error message was backported at all was
> because it happened to be in the same patch.

It shouldn't have been backported. I should have noticed it when I
approved the backport. However I didn't, basically because I suck.

> > If this is unacceptable, then we will remove the string. However, I
> > hope that you can see why we think this patch is in fact quite
> > important, and that you have pity on us for only being mortal.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I haven't been convinced that this added error message is
> essential to have in the gnome-2-10 branch. I certainly understand and
> share your opinion about the other fixes in the patch; the memory leak
> fixes and the translated names fixes. Those do indeed fix important bugs
> and can be classified as essential.

Without wanting to tell the translators how to do their job. I don't
see how having the string marked for translation is necessarily a
bad thing. The string is not likely to ever be user visible, but if
translators want they can translate it. Hence, the only thing it
will affect is people's 100% ratings. Without being in on the
culture, is this an issue?

Please Advise,
--d

-- 
Davyd Madeley
Systems Engineer, Bridgeway Consulting
M: 0422 590 883      F: (08) 9490 1418
http://www.bridgewayconsulting.com.au/