incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
Subject Re: [RELEASE] Releasing new languages for 3.4.1
Date Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:58:43 GMT
Am 10/26/2012 11:35 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>  wrote:
>> Am 10/26/2012 07:43 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>
>>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1) release new languages via lang packs only for now
>>>> 2) release full installs, but for only these new languages
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see a big difference between a langpack and a full install in
>>> this case, so I'd go for full installs, unless releasing langpacks helps
>>> in communicating that these are "late" additions and that full installs
>>> will come with the next release.
>>>
>>>> Can we really skip the release process? PO files == source, right?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, not exactly but quite (PO files are not taken verbatim into source,
>>> but they are imported and influence resource files which are in the
>>> source tree).
>>>
>>>> Maybe a question for legal-discuss if we're not certain.
>>>
>>>
>>> If in the end we have consensus on releasing new languages for 3.4.1
>>> instead of making a new release, indeed we will ask.
>>>
>>>> How do we want to handle this on an ongoing basis? New point release
>>>> for every new language? Every 5 new languages? It is certainly good
>>>> for volunteers to get the encouragement of a fast turnaround for their
>>>> work. But this is the same for a C++ programmer.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are big differences here, that are also the reason for me to
>>> consider releasing these new languages as soon as possible:
>>> - A translation is often done by a team; if we can publish it
>>> immediately, the team can the be involved in other activities like
>>> revamping the N-L website, local promotion and so on; if we wait too
>>> much, we risk to have no volunteers for the following release.
>>
>>
>> Really? I'm not that convinced that this would happen. When we communicate
>> from the beginning when new loalizations will be released then everybody
>> should be able to understand and handle this.
>>
>>
>>> - Releasing a new language is totally risk-free: a new language can't
>>> break functionality in OpenOffice, while any feature could have bugs and
>>> needs more qualified testing.
>>
>>
>> Besides the comment from Jan I remember a case from the old OOo project.
>> There were some translations for the names of Calc functions that got the
>> same name but had to get (slightly) different names. The result was that
>> there were 2-3 sum, 2-3 average, etc. functions. This was also - more or
>> less the only - reason for another respin for a OOo RC; 3.2.1, 3.3.0, I
>> don't remember anymore.
>>
>> So, the risk of new languages may not be high but I wouldn't say it's
>> totally risk-free.
>>
>
> Certainly the risk is reduced.  But there are two areas:
>
> 1) Risk of defects caused by interaction between the core product and
> the translated strings
>
> 2) Risk of a "bad build", for whatever reason, say due to change in a
> system library, leading to an undetected new defect.
>
>>
>>>> In the end, I wonder whether the best solution is to get into a steady
>>>> release cycle of quarterly releases (every 3 or 4 months)?
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> IMHO a regular release schedule is a very good idea. Then everybody can cope
>> with this, can see when the next version will come and we can plan with a
>> regular release plan (when to branch, freeze, localize, etc.).
>>
>> Of course the timeframe will need some discussions to find the right one.
>>
>> Previously it was tried to release every 6 months a new major release and
>> every 6 months a point release. So, with overlapping there was a new release
>> every 3 month. Maybe a good timeframe to continue?
>>
>
> Did you do betas for all releases?  Or only major ones?  Or was this a
> case-by-case decision?

Always for big major releases, here in a really public way (with 
announcements, etc.) and full blown install files. But also here and 
there also for chosen releases with en-US full install + langpacks. I 
think everybody remembers the last one - OOo 3.4.0. ;-)

> We have the ability to do betas if we want.  From an Apache
> perspective they would still be releases, but we could set the right
> expectations with users.  For example, we wouldn't send update
> notifications for beta releases.

Right.

And looking into my crystal ball, I predict that AOO 4.0 will start with 
a beta release.

Marcus



>>> This could be a solution too. In this case we would have the problem of
>>> choosing what to translate (3.4 or 3.5? probably we would ask new
>>> volunteers to focus on strings that will be in the next release, even
>>> though they aren't frozen yet).
>>
>>
>> In any case we should continue to release new languages; regardless if major
>> or point versions.
>>
>> Marcus

Mime
View raw message