l10n patches for post-1.5 versions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

l10n patches for post-1.5 versions

Ahmet Serkan Tıratacı-2
Hi,

[1] says that Firefox 1.5.0.1, probably all 1.5.0.x releases, will be
based on MOZILLA_1_8_0_BRANCH and gives details about approval requesting.

I wonder if this applies to l10n too - that if (or when) we can ask for
approval for the patches regarding translation that will effect 1.5.0.x
or if all will be left for 2.0 launch which is planned to be released
mid-2006.

Serkan

[1] http://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2005/12/16/whats-next/
--
--------------------------------
Mozilla Türkiye
http://mozilla.org.tr
_______________________________________________
mozilla-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-l10n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: l10n patches for post-1.5 versions

Ibon Igartua
Ahmet Serkan Tıratacı wrote:
>
> [1] says that Firefox 1.5.0.1, probably all 1.5.0.x releases, will be
> based on MOZILLA_1_8_0_BRANCH and gives details about approval requesting.


 i have a question for l10n owners ... since the 1_8_0_BRANCH was ready,
are you updating the strings in the trunk as well? ... in case the
answer is positive ... how did/do you manage to mantain both, the branch
and the trunk at the same time?

many thanks,

                ibon (eu)
_______________________________________________
mozilla-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-l10n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: l10n patches for post-1.5 versions

Axel Hecht
In reply to this post by Ahmet Serkan Tıratacı-2
Hi folks,

frankly, I have no freakin clue how we're supposed to do l10 on the
upcoming branches. It's a very involved problem, and I haven't had the
time yet to take a detailed look at the upcoming timing problems.

So anything below is with a grain of salt, or, a few tons. Comment away.

We have three paths of developement, trunk (for 3.0, more back-end
bustage), 1.8 branch for UI focus for 2.0, 1.8.0 branch for stability
releases.
We won't see a release of the trunk that soon, and the UI should widely
match the UI of the 2.0 branch. Theory.
We will see reoccuring releases from the 1.8.0 branch, with little
changes and (hopefully) controlled QA impact.

For l10n, my scheme currently follows. It is governed by two lessons we
learned, localizers are not too familiar with handling branches and
multiple tree rules, at least some of them. The other lesson is that we
have limited ressources for QA. Here goes the draft thinking:

Drop the trunk. Once we go near release, I'd automatically import 1.8
branch localizations, doing a general source cleanup, too. I'd take the
en-US files and fill in the localization strings, hoping that we have
tools that are real editors by then.

Do something on the 1.8 branch. Last I heard, the main branch will work
on "feature-based" approval, that won't carry over to l10n.

On the 1.8.0 branch, only take a limited amount of changes. I'm thinking
of half a dozens locales per release, maybe less. I'd proclaim a week
where folks can submit a single patch and give a risk/benefit analysis,
and I'd pick a handfull and approve them.
This is just to be realistic on what QA can handle. I don't want to take
changes to 40 locales and just release 5. I'd rather go the opposite way
around.

Comments?

Axel

Ibon Igartua wrote:

> Ahmet Serkan Tıratacı wrote:
>> [1] says that Firefox 1.5.0.1, probably all 1.5.0.x releases, will be
>> based on MOZILLA_1_8_0_BRANCH and gives details about approval requesting.
>
>
>  i have a question for l10n owners ... since the 1_8_0_BRANCH was ready,
> are you updating the strings in the trunk as well? ... in case the
> answer is positive ... how did/do you manage to mantain both, the branch
> and the trunk at the same time?
>
> many thanks,
>
> ibon (eu)
_______________________________________________
mozilla-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-l10n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: l10n patches for post-1.5 versions

Ahmet Serkan Tıratacı-2
Axel Hecht yazmış:

> On the 1.8.0 branch, only take a limited amount of changes. I'm thinking
> of half a dozens locales per release, maybe less. I'd proclaim a week
> where folks can submit a single patch and give a risk/benefit analysis,
> and I'd pick a handfull and approve them.
> This is just to be realistic on what QA can handle. I don't want to take
> changes to 40 locales and just release 5. I'd rather go the opposite way
> around.

Taking a single patch for all translation-and-typo-related changes is OK.

However, it's not clear why all (40) locales aren't supposed to have the
chance to make changes by following this single-patch way? If it's
because it's too much workload on you, what will be the criteria to pick
locales that will have approval? (I don't think that not 40 of locales
will ask for something to be approved though.) Every locale owner would
want his fixes to pass as long as there's nothing wrong with the patch.

Serkan

--
--------------------------------
Mozilla Türkiye
http://mozilla.org.tr
_______________________________________________
mozilla-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-l10n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: l10n patches for post-1.5 versions

Ahmet Serkan Tıratacı-2
Ahmet Serkan Tıratacı yazmış:

> (I don't think that not 40 of locales will ask for something to be approved though.)

This would be:

"I think that not 40 of locales will ask for something to be approved
though."

Serkan

--
--------------------------------
Mozilla Türkiye
http://mozilla.org.tr
_______________________________________________
mozilla-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-l10n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: l10n patches for post-1.5 versions

Ibon Igartua
In reply to this post by Ibon Igartua
Ibon Igartua wrote:

>
>  i have a question for l10n owners ... since the 1_8_0_BRANCH was ready,
> are you updating the strings in the trunk as well? ... in case the
> answer is positive ... how did/do you manage to mantain both, the branch
> and the trunk at the same time?

 sorry, I didn't mean 1_8_0_BRANCH, i did mean 1_8_BRANCH

 anyway, my concern about the trunk has been clarified by Axel

thanks,

                ibon




Axel Hecht wrote:
>
> Drop the trunk. Once we go near release, I'd automatically import 1.8
> branch localizations, doing a general source cleanup, too. I'd take
_______________________________________________
mozilla-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-l10n
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: l10n patches for post-1.5 versions

Axel Hecht
In reply to this post by Ahmet Serkan Tıratacı-2


Ahmet Serkan Tıratacı wrote:

> Axel Hecht yazmış:
>
>> On the 1.8.0 branch, only take a limited amount of changes. I'm
>> thinking of half a dozens locales per release, maybe less. I'd
>> proclaim a week where folks can submit a single patch and give a
>> risk/benefit analysis, and I'd pick a handfull and approve them.
>> This is just to be realistic on what QA can handle. I don't want to
>> take changes to 40 locales and just release 5. I'd rather go the
>> opposite way around.
>
> Taking a single patch for all translation-and-typo-related changes is OK.
>
> However, it's not clear why all (40) locales aren't supposed to have the
> chance to make changes by following this single-patch way? If it's
> because it's too much workload on you, what will be the criteria to pick
> locales that will have approval? (I don't think that not 40 of locales
> will ask for something to be approved though.) Every locale owner would
> want his fixes to pass as long as there's nothing wrong with the patch.

The hope is that we can go for very sparse testing matrices for locales
that didn't get changed, as opposed to those locales with changes.

This is mostly about the resources of the QA team, which will be
somewhat busy with other stuff, too.

The criteria will most likely be gutt feeling of mine, based on the
fixed problems and the size of the patch. That is why I wanted
localizers to add a statement about the impact to the patch.

If only a few localizations want fixes, we'll go from there, but my
memory from the approval queue says something different, quite a few
locales have nits in their queue.

Thus I try to cut the expectations down on something that will not look
nice, but work OK.

Axel
_______________________________________________
mozilla-l10n mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-l10n