Conversation
|
When updating the translations I noticed a new "de-DE" locale but Transifex says it's only 11.2% complete so I didn't add it. I don't understand why this locale was added when we already have a 100% complete "de" locale. |
esbrandt
left a comment
esbrandt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hold on a minute with the translations, please revert this.
The template needed updates, the WIX template as well.
I have done all stuff locally, but can not upload and request a merge of my branch because of ssh issues ( new comp). Hope to have it sorted tomorrow.
See #1937 |
Need the form for 2.1 any change? Or copy that over for a new 2.2 link? |
|
So should we delete the de-DE locale from Transifex to prevent future confusion? |
Wouldn't updating the template result in some translations needing to be redone?
I intentionally excluded the WiX updates. See #1899 (comment) |
|
I rebased to remove the changes to the translations. Please open another PR @esbrandt. |
The updated template represents the current state of strings in the 2.2 branch. New or changed strings that have a match below 100% in the Transifex translation memory need rework. It is always beneficial to have the template updated with the most recent string changes - the only way to have them translated in time for release eventually.
|
|
Sorry for the holdup. If I don't get mine resolved tonight, don't wait for me and we can update vci in 2.2.1 |
|
ok, I've addressed the notes in the PR! |
|
|
||
| QStringList thisReleaseDevelopers; | ||
| thisReleaseDevelopers | ||
| << "Daniel Schürmann" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This list was previously sorted by tenure on the dev team (i.e. we just append new people to it and remove inactive folks). What's this ordering?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By number of commits for the current release
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can change it back if there are objections. I don't really care either way. I just thought it made sense to order this the same way as the contributor list below.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yea, I thought so, but it didn't match anything I could come up with using your git shortlog command from below.
I don't think commits are the right metric. It's easy to generate a lot of commits (just make a lot of mistakes :P). Commits also doesn't reward other types of work, like maintaining CI or build infrastructure, doing code review, writing design docs, or community outreach via the forums.
I think this is the sort of change that ought to be discussed on Zulip first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, commits are a crude metric, but isn't any metric? I suppose lines of code changed might be a slightly better metric, but often times less code is better code...
Yea, I thought so, but it didn't match anything I could come up with using your git shortlog command from below.
I noticed there are slightly different results whether you use the -e option or not. -e separates commits from the same person made with different email address whereas without the option those are combined.
I think this is the sort of change that ought to be discussed on Zulip first.
Sure, we can continue discussing it there. I got impatient and didn't want to hold up the release further over such a discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
but date of first contribution would be difficult to track
I'm pretty sure git commits include a date ;).
Yes, but it's not so easy to sort commit authors by date. I did find a script that kinda does that, but when specifying the range release-2.1.0..2.2, it sorts by date of first contribution to the current release, which is odd.
Maybe we can sort by lines of code removed :P
Now that I can get behind!
Unfortunately it doesn't seem there is an existing tool to do this easily.
I also think that contribution can be more than writing code, and counting commits is a statement that code is the primary value people bring to the team. And the ranking doesn't include contributions to the manual, website, or build server repos (I don't think you included those?) so that's also a statement about what type of contribution is valued. There's also work that doesn't produce commits (user support, launchpad bug wrangling, CI and build server maintenance, release planning / cat herding, etc.).
True, and we haven't tracked such contributions before, nor do I think it would be trivial to do so.
So I think sorting contributors to the current release alphabetically would be the least value-laden way to do credits and it's easy to get that information from Git.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like projects that list contributors alphabetically, +1 to that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we have a problem here. In the past I have carefully taken care that every new contributor is listed in the about box after their first commit. Every new contributor was added to the bottom. Before a release, we have decided who was moved to the past section. This means that naturally remaining contributors are moved up.
The list was still valid. We have no need to reorder it away from this natural order. We also need no algorithm for it it just happens. We just need to fix the commit by accident.
5 participants
Still waiting on the build servers as discussed on Zulip
I'd also like to have these PRs finished with last minute touches before releasing:
What about the "Help → Send Us Feedback" form? Anyone want to volunteer to make a new one?