Re: Please pull git-po master branch

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 3, 2012, 06:47 UTC
Message-ID: <7vaa1phica.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANYiYbH+N3k_=FWyeS_HfBWSBeBdOUqW5qrHFe=qV4ECtYABpA@mail.gmail.com>

Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> What I have learned from this:
>
>  * Only pull reqests with updates of already exists language are accepted
>    for the 'maint' branch of git-po. If a new l10n language support wants to
>    be added to 'maint' branch or to the RC version, it must be fully
>    discussed int this list.
>
>  * Pull requests with a initial XX.po (untranslated) and updated TEAMS file
>    will not merge to the master branch, but merge to a work in progress
>    branch, such as WIP/XX.
>
>    In order to coordinate works of potential contributors for a new l10n
>    language, l10n team leader (the 1st contributor send me a pull request)
>    will send a pull requst with a untranslated XX.po and update TEAMS
>    file with URL of the dedicated repository for the new language XX.
>    Nobody can guarantee how long XX.po will 100% translated. If merge
>    this initial commit too soon to the master branch, unfinished *.po will
>    be released, like da.po from Byrial Jensen, nl.po from
>    Vincent van Ravesteijn, and pt_PT.po from Marco Sousa.
>    So create a WIP/XX branch may resolved this problem.

I am not sure if writing down bureaucratic-sounding and rigid rules is the best first response to this kind of incident. It's a learning process for all of us involved, and in early rounds like this, mistakes are bound to happen, and the first response should be to admit it, i.e. "Sorry, there was a miscommunication and gap in understanding among us. I as the i18n coordinator should have double checked before responding to pull requests to see if there was a consensus within the l10n team for the particular language. I'll try to be more careful until we nail the procedure down and everybody gets more comfortable with the process."

Obviously I was also at fault that I didn't double check with you to make sure that the l10n teams involved were happy with what you are about to feed me, and I was wrong to instead blindly have assumed that it was the case. I should have done so until I get to know you better that you would always operate in such a careful fashion [*1*].

Once a sound process of human communication is in place, I do not think a rigid rule like "no new language to 'maint'" is particularly necessary.

[Footnote]

*1* Yes, I am saying that I shouldn't have blindly trusted you, and similarly, I expect you to learn not to blindly trust l10n people you work with, until you know they know you expect that they sufficiently coordinate among themselves within the l10n team for a single language before sending you an integration request. Don't take this in a wrong way. Trust will come after repeated interactions and learning the other parties you are working with.