Re: GNOME Moduleset Reorganization vs. L10N

[Jeff Schroeder <jeffschroed gmail com>]

On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 13:29 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
> El vie, 15-10-2010 a las 08:29 -0700, Sandy Armstrong escribió:
> > 
> > I'm not a fan myself, but I can see how once a project was already
> > hooked on a Launchpad-oriented process, it would be work to migrate to
> > GNOME infrastructure.
> > 
> 
> Agree, how could we shorten that difference? I think this is the real
> issue, at least for this part of the proposal.

Disclaimer: I HATE BUGZILLA. I HATE BUGZILLA. I HATE BUGZILLA.

I've privately reached out to launchpad upstream a few times to see if
it is possible to split off the various parts of the monolithic
launchpad.net for our own use. The goal was to set it up and see if it
would be a good fit for GNOME users/developers.

The answer I got was at this time, launchpad is a monolithic project
which would be extremely difficult to break up into various pieces. They
were friendly and noted that patches to split off things like malone
into a bit more stand alone versions would be accepted. However, it
isn't really on their roadmap to work on this. Their goals are more
aligned towards making launchpad.net as a service rock and keep the
source code of it free. Our goals are more aligned towards using bits of
launchpad that are really good in places of other things in our own
infrastructure.

We can't shorted a difference in Canonical's workflow. It seems like the
kind of thing that we can't officially sanction but won't discourage if
individual package maintainers want to use bzr/lp.net.

Would setting up a "gnome transiflex" and teaching transiflex how to
talk more with launchpad help with this any?