[Building Sakai] Suggestion for improvement of i18n and L10n handling in JIRA
DAVID ROLDAN MARTINEZ
darolmar at upvnet.upv.es
Wed Mar 21 05:37:46 PDT 2012
+1
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Beth Kirschner [mailto:bkirschn at umich.edu]
Enviado el: miércoles, 21 de marzo de 2012 13:26
Para: Jean-Francois Leveque
CC: sakai-dev Developers; i18n at collab.sakaiproject.org; DAVID ROLDAN MARTINEZ; Shoji Kajita
Asunto: Re: Suggestion for improvement of i18n and L10n handling in JIRA
+1
On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we can work out the other details later.
>
> Any opposition to the creation of the Translation component?
>
> Cheers,
>
> J-F
>
> On 08/03/2012 11:39, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If David thinks it's a good idea to keep an Internationalization and
>> add a Translation component, I think we might be able to reach a solution.
>>
>> I nevertheless think Internationalization and Translation issues
>> should not be automatically assigned to an i18n team. As long and the
>> component that contains the issue is still maintained, I think issues
>> should be assigned to the maintainers.
>>
>> If there's an i18n team, it should be there to help the tool
>> maintainers, not just doing the i18n work.
>>
>>> Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and
>>> he will eat for a lifetime.
>>> Confucius, K'ung Fu-tzu, K'ung-tzu, Kong Zi, Kong Qiu, Zhong Ni
>>> Circa 551 - 479
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Is there a way to do this with JIRA, like having no automatic
>> assignment for the Internationalization and Translation components
>> which could lead to issues being assigned to the team maintaining the
>> code that contains the issue?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> J-F
>>
>> On 17/02/2012 19:58, DAVID ROLDAN MARTINEZ wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> And how about to create a sub-team inside CLE/MT Team to handle i18n
>>> issues and assigning automatically tickets with Internationalization
>>> component set and adding a Translation component to tickets?
>>>
>>> This will allow you to vet issues and update components (if
>>> necessary) but also will allow "i18n team" to differentiate between
>>> i18n (Internationalization component) and L10n (Translation
>>> component) not loosing then the ability to identify issues.
>>> Additionally, i18n team would be able to share your workload helping you to handle i18n issues.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>> ________________________________________
>>> De: sakai-dev-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>> [sakai-dev-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] En nombre de Beth
>>> Kirschner [bkirschn at umich.edu] Enviado el: viernes, 17 de febrero de
>>> 2012 16:08
>>> Para: Shoji Kajita; Jean-Francois Leveque
>>> CC: sakai-dev Developers
>>> Asunto: Re: [Building Sakai] Suggestion for improvement of i18n and
>>> L10n handling in JIRA
>>>
>>> I guess the real question is what is the problem we're trying to
>>> solve? Jean-Francois mentioned that the auto-assign of I18N issues
>>> sometimes requires me to re-assign the owner -- this really isn't a
>>> huge inconvenience and sometimes allows me to vet issues and update
>>> components if incorrect. Jean-Francois also proposes adding two new
>>> checkboxes that differentiate between L10N and I18N -- I guess I
>>> worry that people may not find or understand these checkboxes.
>>>
>>> The "Maintenance Team" checkbox has fallen into dis-use, with the
>>> "assigned to" field more consistently reflecting a "Maintenance Team"
>>> issue (now called CLE team, since all CLE developer's are now
>>> considered de-facto members of the CLE/Maintenance Team). If a field
>>> isn't required, I suspect many will not fill it in. I wouldn't want
>>> to see us losing the ability to identify I18N/L10N issues.
>>>
>>> - Beth
>>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2012, at 9:12 PM, Shoji Kajita wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Beth,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your swift reaction. Then, what shall we do?
>>>>
>>>> So far, Jean-Francois's suggestion is most reasonable for me.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Shoji
>>>>
>>>> At Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:55:58 -0500,
>>>> Beth Kirschner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Shoji,
>>>>>
>>>>> No problem -- I jumped the gun and have reverted the JIRA
>>>>> component to read "Internationalization".
>>>>>
>>>>> - Beth
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Shoji Kajita wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Beth,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found that "x-internationalization" you are proposing has been
>>>>>> already available on Jira.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is not a good solution because:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. it is NOT matching for "internationalization" (Jira tells me
>>>>>> "No Matches" when I'm typing in Component/s field in creating a
>>>>>> Jira issue so that almost nobody can use),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. we haven't reached the conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please continue our discussion to find a better solution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Shoji
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:43:10 -0500, Beth Kirschner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about we try for a low-tech hack of changing the I18N
>>>>>>> component to sort alphabetically to the end --
>>>>>>> ("x-Internationalization"). This will make sure the primary
>>>>>>> component owners get assigned?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Beth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All the CLE internationalization component issues are currently
>>>>>>>> automagically assigned to Beth Kirschner (Lead for this
>>>>>>>> component in
>>>>>>>> JIRA) if the real component name is after Internationalization
>>>>>>>> in alphabetical order. She then assigns most of the issues to
>>>>>>>> the real component owner. I don't think this is really convenient.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Internationalization and translation issues are currently mixed
>>>>>>>> in the internationalization component. There is no way to know
>>>>>>>> the ones are internationalization from the ones that are
>>>>>>>> translation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A better solution for both issues is welcome if my suggestion
>>>>>>>> is not good enough.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> J-F
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 31/01/2012 17:35, Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't really sound easier to me and there are getting
>>>>>>>>> to be an awful lot of checkboxes there. The current filters
>>>>>>>>> should do exactly what you want without a lot of work to make
>>>>>>>>> this change in JIRA.
>>>>>>>>> -AZ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Jean-Francois Leveque
>>>>>>>>> <jean-francois.leveque at upmc.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Currently, SAK issues can have internationalization in the
>>>>>>>>>> list of components.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AFAICT, the only real internationalization component has been
>>>>>>>>>> in kernel since the creation of kernel with Sakai 2.6.0.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Currently the JIRA internationalization component is used
>>>>>>>>>> both for L10n and i18n issues.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suggest we stop using this component and add 2 new
>>>>>>>>>> check-boxes (like the Maintenance Team Issue one):
>>>>>>>>>> Internationalization Issue
>>>>>>>>>> Localization Issue
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me this way will be easier to check which
>>>>>>>>>> languages have been updated or to look for
>>>>>>>>>> internationalization issues.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you think ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> J-F
>
>
> --
> Jean-François Lévêque
> Responsable technique Sakai
> Université Pierre et Marie Curie
>
> --
> Jean-Francois Leveque
> Australe (local Sakai CLE) CTO
> University Pierre and Marie Curie
> France
More information about the sakai-dev
mailing list