httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yoshiki Hayashi <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/docs/manual urlmapping.xml.ja
Date Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:15:07 GMT
Joshua Slive <> writes:

> People have also stated concerns about people deliberately putting garbage 
> in the docs ("Free Tibet").  I am not personally concerned about that.

Me neither.  I don't think people will work hard to earn
trust only to pull one time show.

> Well, I sort of thought that there was reviewing going on 
> behind-the-scenes for the stuff you committed.

If you consider myself reviewing my translations sometimes a
couple of months after those are translated, yes, all of
them were reviewed.  If someone reviewed some files
explicitly, they were always mentioned in 'reviewed by'
field.  Others are sort of implicit review.  They stayed up
on Japanese site so I believe people read it.  But since
they don't give us any comments, I don't know for sure they
didn't have anything to say or no people actually read it.

Our CVS server died last month because of pserver hole and I
have been too busy to make the service back up.  Because of
this, a couple of changes by Hiroaki wasn't reviewed but
most of the changes were actually reviewed beforehand.  But
since the change history was gone with the server, I guess
it was difficult for him to know which one was reviewed by

> I'm not the right person to argue with on this subject, since, as I've 
> said, I'm in favour of relaxed standards.  I also agree that, over the 
> years, we have spent way too much time debating this issue.  But as an 
> issue of oversight, I thought it important not to change our standards 
> under-the-covers.  Now that this issue is out in the open, anyone who 
> objects should speak up.

Well, I'm not really trying to argue with you specifically
but we weren't very strict about enforcing it for regular
contributors and I actually liked it.  So I'm just voicing
my opinion.

> I assume that your proposed standards are something like:
> - All translations from non-committers must be reviewed before being 
> committed.
> - Commit access will not be granted to a translator until we have 
> developed a degree of trust in his or her translations.  (For example, if 
> we post the translated and reviewed docs for a period of time and get no
> objections from our readers, then this would be a reason to trust the 
> translator.)
> - If a translator is given commit access *and* there is at least one other 
> active participant who is fluent in that language (and reads the commit 
> mailing list), then small translations and updates may be committed 
> without prior review.  Translations of new docs should still get reviewed 
> prior to commit.

Yes, this is pretty much what I'm proposing.  I think the
hurdle is still too hard for one time contributor or
non-committer but I can't come up with a good way to make it
easier without having the risk of accepting bad translation.

Yoshiki Hayashi

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message