On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 01:19:48PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> I'm sorry if I seemed hostile before.
OK.
Following your suggestions to always first check HACKING whether
something is allowed instead of using common sense I really considered
removing de.po from trunk and see how you would react (remember: no
commit allowed for you without beeing a maintainer of this file :-) ...
> I did not suspect at any time
> that Kang was trying to deceive us; but I didn't want to create
> a precedent of committing a patch without at least minimal review.
So explain again: How happened the first commit?
Quoting hacking.html:
"We have a tradition of not marking files with the names of individual
authors (i.e., we don't put lines like "Author: foo" or "@author foo" in
a special position at the top of a source file). This is to discourage
territoriality — even when a file has only one author, we want to make
sure others feel free to make changes. People might be unnecessarily
hesitant if someone appears to have staked a personal claim to the
file."
Considering that the last update to ko.po happened one year ago I really
see no problem following the advice above ("we want to make
sure others feel free to make changes").
There are two possibilities:
* The original translator vanished. Either abandon the translation
or accept new submissions (especially if you did not suspect that
a new contributor deceived us).
* The original translator is still willing to help. In this case every
patch can be checked be him, right?
So I really see no possible harm at all ...
Let's see whether Kang will send further updates.
Jens
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-27 16:53:56 CEST