Re: FLP general bugs

On 2018/02/23 5:38, Piotr Drąg wrote:
> 2018-02-20 22:06 GMT+01:00 Jean-Baptiste <[email protected]>:
>> Le 18/02/2018 à 18:38, Piotr Drąg a écrit :
>>> Other language and l10n-requests are still useful, but the rest should
>>> be disabled/removed, in my opinion. Maybe we can change the
>>> description of the latter from the current “Requests for new Fedora
>>> Localization, and other miscellaneous work” to “Bugs related to the
>>> Fedora Localization Project as a whole” or similar.
>> Hi, I also think we can disable these trackers.
>>
>> When I produce a report using every component of the "Fedora
>> Localization" product [1], I see 10 bugs opened since 2017-01-01.
>>
>> Shouldn't we consider going further and disabling every
>> language-specific Bugzilla components?
>>
>> Having one single localization place to issues would probably makes it
>> easier for follow-up.
>>
>> While Bugzilla worked fine for years, many projects (docs, websites,
>> etc.) uses Pagure. Shouldn't we consider moving all of our tracking in
>> Pagure and find a way to advertise it in Bugzilla?
>> Or can we create some kind of bridge (allow creating, and automatically
>> clone the ticket on Pagure, then close the bug on Bugzilla with comment)?
>>
> Individual components for languages allow these communities to
> subscribe to only their bugs. We can’t have a single “translation
> bugs” component, I’d be an unmaintainable nightmare.

I agree having individual components for languages. This way allows 
every language coordinator to take the responsibility to a bug filed 
against his/her language.

noriko

>
> I also think it’s advantageous to have l10n bugs in the same place as
> software bugs. Just being able to move a bug to a different product is
> vital.
>
> We do have https://pagure.io/g11n/issues and I think it can happily
> co-exist with Bugzilla.
>
> Best regards,
>
_______________________________________________
trans mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]