Parent Page > Discussion

Sign your comments using @SIG@

Edit conflict

This page is undergoing an edit war since a month. In March 2007 I did a cleanup of this page, but the changes were reverted by EddyPetrisor. I asked Eddy to justify his changes several times, and one day we came close to have a good discussion but stopped before significant progress was made. I came back with this on IRC on 2007-03-01 and told Eddy that I wanted the issue to be settled before April 2008. That week we did significant progress towards a merge, but not much. I failed to contact Eddy via IRC since then and was not contacted. On 2008-04-01, after waiting a year, I "hijacked" the page, but Eddy re-hijacked. So I'm trying another medium.

Eddy, first let me be clear: your behavior is unacceptable. Nevertheless, I will not take action if you do not push your version before mentioning a reasonable date before which you'll have time to justify your changes, and if you do justify your changes before that date. Feel free to justify on this page or via IRC. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-02 01:33:34

One, the war has been going one for over a year and started with your refusal to understand that problems which appear in Debian or Ubuntu, because one certain distribution method is used, no matter where those problems originate, are problems (see your removals in commits 16, 17 and 18) and must not be hidden. -- EddyPetrisor

• One, the war hasn't been going on for over a year. It started in revisions 20-21 on 2008-03-01. Before that, the only thing that happened was your reversion in 19. I don't consider that reversion an act of war, as it was the first reversion from you and we hadn't discussed the issues at all at that point.

• Two, the war didn't start with my refusal to understand that problems which appear in Debian or Ubuntu, because one certain distribution method is used, no matter where those problems originate, are problems, but rather with your failure to understand that some problems which your version describes as specific to language packages are actually not specific to language packages. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-03 05:18:21

Two, the "cleanup" you talk about was mostly a replacement you tried to do in 20, but that didn't took into account that it was broken, since the "cleanup" contained a set of omissions that were killing valid information. -- EddyPetrisor

• If current version is broken, it is less broken than the old one. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-03 05:18:21

Three, your victim-playing and accusations have little, if any, grounds, and if you or anybody else wants proof, I still keep the IRC logs. Still, I will proceed here and enumerate the main issues with your "constructive" changes. -- EddyPetrisor

• I have no idea what victim-playing you refer to. If you disagree with accusations, please mention them. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-03 05:18:21

I have told you a loooot of times why your changes are unacceptable; while we didn't succeed to talk on he phone, I have told you on IRC, but you seem to be reluctant to accept the valid points I have made. I have explained you in more than one way why your changes are unacceptable, but you seem to think that omitting problems:

• http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/TranslationDataDistribution?action=diff&rev2=18&rev1=17

• http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/TranslationDataDistribution?action=diff&rev1=16&rev2=17

• http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/TranslationDataDistribution?action=diff&rev2=16&rev1=15

and information:

• proven by the changes I had to do in commit 34 "Damn it Chealer, there are three cases and more issues, don't hide problems!"

is the way to got forward. -- EddyPetrisor

• My changes aren't unacceptable. I do not think that omitting all problems is the way to go forward, but the page should of course omit issues which are common to both methods (or, if you really want, to mention them, do it in a separate section where they aren't confusing). -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-03 05:18:21

Moreover, this page describes current way of distributing translations, and you obstinately remove sections, information and methods that are subject to this. For example, you remove the references to the issues that language packs (as iceweasel uses) have. With your last revert 39, you removed (or better said, remerged it in another) the section about the third type of distribution, the "one package for more apps (the KDE way)", while I have explained to you (since you don't seem to consider it warrants a different section, in spite of its obviousness to me) why this is a different thing. You still don't seem to understand that there is a difference (as proven by your manual revert 39 which replaces, among others, "There are currently several methods to distribute localized data" with "This document describes two currently used methods to distribute localized data...").

This alone should be a real sign of something being wrong since the old version actually did have three valid subsections, while your 39 version has only two and explicitly states that.

• The only change I did in 39 is to link to this discussion page. I already explained you via IRC on 2008-03-01 that the Mozilla language packs issue mentioned in the old version aren't specific to language packages. Regarding the number of sections/methods/ways of distributing localization data, both 2 and 3 are valid. As I wrote on IRC, the KDE way is (almost) specific to KDE, so could be ignored.
• However, if we do consider that as a parameter, then we get two parameters: whether the localization data for multiple localized packages is mixed together, and whether the localization data is distributed in packages separate from the localized packages or one of its dependencies. This creates 4 combinations:
  1. localization data for multiple localized packages not mixed together and localization data is distributed in packages separate from localized packages and their dependencies (Debian language packages)
  2. localization data for multiple localized packages not mixed together and localization data is distributed in the localized package (most packages)
  3. localization data for multiple localized packages mixed together and localization data is distributed in packages separate from the localized packages or one of its dependencies (KDE)
  4. localization data for multiple localized packages mixed together and localization data is distributed in the localized packages or one of its dependencies (not used AFAIK)

• After you brought up this point, I modified my version to play safe and be sure you can't use this as an argument against my version. The difference now is that you cover each of these combinations separately (except the fourth), while the current version treats combinations which are only different by the first parameter in the same section. So, the current version is valid, even though yours is also valid if we ignore case 4 since it isn't used AFAIK. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-03 05:18:21

Also, note that I have been the one that actively merged some of your changes (http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/TranslationDataDistribution?action=diff&rev2=34&rev1=33), while you have reverted that merge blindly to your version. -- EddyPetrisor

• Actually, I also merged some of your changes. I merged some of your changes between 33 to 34, to take the same example as you, as you can see in the page's history. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-03 05:46:20

Also, when you partly understood that there are other issues, after lengthy discussions with me on IRC, you understood that partly, but still did a bad job at merging what you understood - as proven by the version 31. -- EddyPetrisor

• I didn't "understand" any issue in my version after discussing with you on IRC. The change I did between 28 and 31 was requested by you. I know it's bad, but I'll be happy to remove it if you changed your mind (as I wrote on IRC after your request, "[20:18:13] <chealer> I'll let it (but I don't think you'll like it)."). -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-03 05:46:20

During our IRC discussion, you've made me loose my temper with your refusal to understand, so please stop playing the victim role and actually look at the changes you revert, you should know I have. Also, I don't appreciate your constant bashing and unfounded claims that you have waited for over a year, as you said in the commit message of version 35 ""hijack", after waiting for more than a year (still open if you can find time)", while the commits 26, 27, 28, 30, 31 prove - in spite of your obvious mistakes in understanding my points - that I have actively worked on fixing this issues. 2008-04-02 12:25:26 (with updates and corrections later) -- EddyPetrisor

• Again, I'm not playing the victim role and I already looked at the changes I reverted. I don't know which refusal to understand you're referring to. Towards the end of the discussion, we were discussing something about binary packages and the discussion stopped before we agreed, but that's because you wrote "fuck, man, why don't you change the bits you agreed with me after I revert back to 22.... meaning le't take this page step by step". If you want to finish that discussion, I'm open if you can find time.

• Which constant bashing do you refer to? Regarding the unfounded claims, I did wait for 1 year. This doesn't mean that you didn't work on these issues during one year, just that you're not done after 1 year.

• So, I'm reverting to the new version. Please don't revert to the old version before mentioning at least one actual regression in the new version. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-03 05:18:21

I will revert YET ANOTHER TIME and warn you NOT TO REVERT YOURSELF AGAIN or I will be forced to appeal to and external arbiter or the tech-ctte. There are more things to add to your answer, but I won't do it now and I will address just the regressions you wanted to be pointed out to. Also, I will consider that, once I have shown you a lot more than your minimum required quantity of regressions, you have had accepted already that you were wrong, and any attempt to revert to your version will mean that you are ready and want to see the arbiter or the technical committee about this issue, before we conclude something out of this discussion. Here are more than what you requested wrt regressions:

1)

- Language packages are usually built from a special source package (e.g. iceweasel-l10n).

+ Language packages are built from the iceweasel-l10n source package. iceweasel doesn't depend on its language packages.

and iceweasel is definetly NOT the only appplication doing this, it is plainly a particular case. Generics are preferable since we're talking about methods of distributing localization info, particular cases should be just examples. The former wording is clearer and you revert introduces a regression.

• This is an example, as indicated in the section's title. The context and the sentence itself clearly indicate that it doesn't talk about all langpacks, but just iceweasel langpacks. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-07 13:24:00

2)

- This is the simplest solution. Localized data is included in the application package.

+ This is the simplest solution. Localized data is included in the localized package (or, rarely, in one of its dependencies).

This is non-sense on multiple accounts and another regression since the old wording was clearer.

1. What the hell is the "localized package"? There is no definition of such a thing in the Debian land and that term is ambiguous. Is that a special package that contains strictly localization info or are you referring to the application package as "localized" once it has localization info in it?
2. If the translation is included in the dependency, then, we're no longer talking about the first case (where the localized info is part of the main package).
3. If there is a separate localization package, then why the hell is this part of the "translations are part of the main package"?

The proper way to word this is to say "This is the simplest solution. Localized data is included in the main (e.g. application) package." . (DO NOT TAKE THIS AS AN INVITATION TO DO THE EDIT YOURSELF since this was already addressed in the latter comments!).

• I didn't know which term to use. I thought about "localized package" quite a bit. If you have a better idea in mind, please let me know. Of course, "application package" is too specific since it doesn't cover documents. Meanwhile, I simply added a definition. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-07 13:24:00

If you still think that the case where the entire (i.e. all languages) localization info is distributed in a -data-like package which is a dependency (it is possible, although I suspect this is not, due to dependency issues, de-syncs that may appear), then that warrants another case or, at least, it should be clarified as such in that paragraph, which, unsurprisingly, WAS ALREADY DONE AGES AGO BY MYSELF:

- * Bundling localization data for all available languages in a binary package (either the application binary or a -data package). The main issue with this approach is the size of the package.

+ * Bundling localized data for all languages with the localized package. The main issue with this approach is the size of the package.

• Actually, now that you talk about it, I checked and found an example, which I added. It's already clarified in the paragraph: Localized data is included in the localized package (or, rarely, in one of its dependencies). -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-07 13:24:00

3)

- There are currently several methods to distribute localized data:

+ There are currently two methods to distribute localized data:

As you can plainly see in revision 38 (http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/TranslationDataDistribution?action=recall&rev=38) I was able to describe 3 (three) methods, this would mean, for any rational person the statement "There are currently two methods to distribute localized data" is FALSE.

More than that you yourself were able to come up with 4 (four) methods -- This creates 4 combinations -- as of which the last is not used since, ttbomk it would create all sorts of pain to the maintainer. THUS, we're left with 3 DIFFERENT VALID DISTRIBUTIONS METHODS THAT ARE PRESENTLY USED. Did that get through to you? Are we clear at least on this small detail? -- EddyPetrisor

• When you write "There are several ways to do foo: a, b, c." without specifying "including" nor "etcetera", that implies you're doing a complete listing at least as much as "There are x things." implies that there are no more than x things. And since you do that in your version, and the listing is incomplete, this is hardly a regression. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-07 13:24:00

People, this edit war and so-called "discussion" is more and more annoying. Philippe, this activity was started by Eddy and even if you disagree with his approach, please don't interfere with his work. You can start your own. -- ChristianPerrier 2008-04-05 14:54:39

• Actually jfs started the page, Eddy only did minor modifications before my involvement. Anyway, I'm going to split versions so there's no interference. We can bring back a normal page if we succeed to merge or if consensus builds on either version being best. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-07 13:24:00

Comments

Eddy, please keep my replies in their context. If you want to keep your whole replies vanilla, you can always duplicate them. -- FilipusKlutiero 2008-04-07 13:24:00