[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r11950 - trunk/doc/translations/spanish/book

From: Grzegorz Adam Hankiewicz <gradha_at_titanium.sabren.com>
Date: 2004-11-19 10:45:20 CET

Sorry Erik, I didn't notice you had made this email public, so I'm
going to copy my answer here for completeness.

On 2004-11-18, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Book Spanish. Reverting r11882 because it didn't follow
> > the correct commit procedure and author doesn't clear up
> > source/authority.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the objection. Is the translation
> incorrect?

Yes, there are two mistakes in the translation and one mistake in
the log message. For a one liner patch this puts into doubt the
credibility of both Daniel Rall and Laila Cory Rall as responsible
translators.

> What do you mean by 'author doesn't clear up source/authority'?
> Is your objection is that the author did not come to the list
> to announce his/her intentions before committing? In that case
> you could have followed up to the commit mail informing dlr about
> your procedure asking him to keep to it if he has any intentions
> for more contributions. I'm sure he's sensitive to your comments.

I sent such a message with reasons the 13th of November. But I've
got no answer. Before reverting the change I sent another notice
yesterday, the 18th of November with further explanations about
my decision.

With authority of the patch I mean that attribution has to be
given to the correct person, otherwise patches cannot be accepted.
Every contributed patch has to be traceable to a person, and this
person has to accept the terms of the license. I've done this so
far with all the contributors and will continue doing it to avoid
legal problems I've had in previous projects.

> Whatever your reasons may have been: reverting is a severe measure.
> Please use it carefully on other peoples commits: people are
> contributing on a voluntary basis and je want them to keep doing it
> :-) Patching up any incorrectnesses is - for that reason - far more
> preferable than reverting.

Indeed, I explained this to Daniel and asked him to please resubmit
the patch following the correct rules. Without any answer on his
part, however, the difference would have been rejecting the patch
on the mailing list due to incorrections.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 19 10:46:02 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.