Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Maybe we should have a pgfoundry project where all translations
> > were kept, and from which the main CVS could be updated
> > semi-automatically. Then we wouldn't have Peter checking out and
> > committing all the time.
>
> That sounds like a fine idea. My only concern would be the
> "not-maintained-here" syndrome, which occurs every time some CVS tree
> contains a file that is actually maintained by an external group,
> thus blocking the maintainers of the former CVS tree from applying
> necessary fixes at times. Nevertheless, I think this is a winner.
> Let's consider it when we start the 8.1 cycle.
OK, is anyone opposed to this idea? I would register a pgfoundry
project (name suggestions? "translations"?), give most established
translators commit access, and move the statistics pages there. Also,
some translation groups seem to have their own mailing lists or web
pages, which could optionally also be hosted there.
We could then sync the translations either regularly (e.g., once a week)
or only at release time. Of course we would need to mirror all the
branches there.
Comments?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/