On 22-03-11 16:38 Trevor Parscal <tparscal(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
My suggestion is that all of this "busy" work
is highly automatable, but
I'm sure he has a greater ability to assess the complexities of this work
than I do.
In general I feel that we should be thinking about "how would we make
this work" instead of "why should we not do this".
IMO that a bridge too far. My question is "Why should we make this
happen?", and more specifically, what do our various stakeholders (which
groups?) gain or lose in case MediaWiki development would shift from
Subversion to Git? Only if the gain in the analysis would be greater than
the loss, it makes sense to me look look further into a move to Git.
On 22-03-11 16:08 Trevor Parscal <tparscal(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Your objections seem to be based on the assumption that
you would need to
have push access to all repositories, but I think that's the point of
DCVS, you can just fork them, and then people can pull your changes in
themselves (or using a tool). Pull requests could even be generated when
things are out of sync.
Yes, sir, indeed. Getting the L10n updates (as well as the i18n updates)
into the code as soon as possible is of paramount importance to the
success MediaWiki has in its i18n and L10n efforts. Having to wait until
possibly active repo maintainers pull updates is unacceptable. This would
kill translator motivation, and take us back years.
Siebrand