On 22-03-11 16:38 Trevor Parscal tparscal@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@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