Re: [translations] Git translation branch policy change: merge with and from stable/2.16

[Francisco Vila <paconet.org@xxxxxxxxx>]

2012/9/25 Francisco Vila <paconet.org@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2012/9/25 David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>:
>> Obviously, documentation improvements concerning 2.16-only material are
>> quite eligible as they will not disrupt 2.16 operation and compatibility
>> itself.  One just needs to be careful with stuff concerning manual
>> structure, web functionality etc in order not to render the manual
>> inconsistent.
>>
>> If somebody volunteers to do this selection process (possibly also
>> committing to the 2.16 stable branch) instead of me, it will certainly
>> save me some work.
>
> At first, I can not see what amount of translation work already in
> 2.16 is _not_eligible to be cherrypicked to staging right now and
> become a part of the 2.17 releases. Possibly all that currently is in
> translation and was not there before the 2.16 fork, could equally be
> in staging.
>
> The reason being that translators do not have a reference of what new
> material is in 2.17 and therefore we'll translate from the latest
> stage of translation, and that is 2.16.
>
> New 2.17 translation work can not be pushed to translation branch
> until we close the door to 2.16 because we don't have a translation
> branch for unstable which is distinct of that we have for stable. Or,
> do we? I think we should. For 2.18, I respectfully demand to fork
> stable and its own translation branch at the same time. With our
> current system, translations of the few first 2.17 releases are
> outdated and there is no easy possibility of updating them, other than
> pushing directly to staging.

John, David: do you agree or disagree on anything of the above?

Specifically, do you agree in that translations for 2.17 are stalled
and can not progress because we are stuck in 2.16, and in that all
translations in stable can be ported directly to 2.17?

-- 
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com