Rosetta/bzr (was: What is an Upstream?)

[kiko at async.com.br]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 12:09:53AM +0000, Tim Morley wrote:
> >>>   - Who contributed an approved translation (implemented)
> >>Tim:
> >>Yes, definitely; I believe this information is already recorded, but
> >>I need to be able to use it too.
> >
> >Does the current display at
> >https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/dapper/+source/kdebase/+pots/ 
> >kdesktop/eu/10/+translate
> >serve your purposes? I'm talking about the text saying
> >     Translated by:          marcos on 2006-04-05 10:06:10 UTC
> >for the record.
> 
> Right, sorry, my mistake on that one; I haven't actually used Rosetta  
> for a little while, and you're right, this information is displayed.  

Not your mistake; it was only recently added.

> who contributed which translations, but I'd like^W^W I need to be  
> able to do a "view by contributor" and potentially "throw everything  
> by this contributor away".

That's a separate feature, and good that you bring it up. Carlos, is
there a bug filed for this, or a spec recording it?

> >Should the whiteboard be editable by anyone? There are pros and  cons
> >to that approach, and I'm not sure what the right solution is.
> 
> Depends to a large extent on the team structure. If we have a certain  
> amount of granularity in team membership (owner, trusted member,  
> normal member, new/moderated member, etc.) then I'd give full access  
> to maybe the first two, and add-only access to the others. If we've  
> only got "team members" and "non team members", then... I dunno.
> 
> Like CVS though, all changes would hopefully be trackable.

Having a list of comments might be simpler, then. The whiteboard is cool
if it can be simple -- no history and no restrictions. If you need
history and restrictions but the data is mostly append-only, then a set
of comments should work.
-- 
Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 3361 2331