Difference between revisions of "PMC proposals/Repository reorganisation"

From Apertium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Summary: add 'proposed by', and an empty 'seconded by')
Line 9: Line 9:
   
 
The discussion leading to this proposal may be read in [https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=AANLkTi%3DnxWRSgF%3D%3D83hDnSLXEyn_970ehnipuZSsLxUV%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=apertium-stuff this thread].
 
The discussion leading to this proposal may be read in [https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=AANLkTi%3DnxWRSgF%3D%3D83hDnSLXEyn_970ehnipuZSsLxUV%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=apertium-stuff this thread].
  +
  +
Proposed by: [[User:Jimregan|Jimregan]]
  +
  +
Seconded by:
   
 
==In Detail==
 
==In Detail==

Revision as of 23:02, 8 February 2011

2011/02/08 #1: Repository Reorganisation

Summary

The incubator module in SVN has been quite successful in encouraging the contribution of less developed material; however, the range of development statuses is problematic. In this proposal, we propose to split incubator into incubator, nursery and staging.

The discussion leading to this proposal may be read in this thread.

Proposed by: Jimregan

Seconded by:

In Detail

trunk would contain pairs in "release" and "[alpha|pre]-release" status, and would exclude unreleased language pairs/software.

staging would contain pairs that build, and have an advanced status in all modules (dictionaries with closed categories and a decent coverage, an "ad hoc" PoS tagset and .prob, good coverage of main contrastive phenomena, testvoc clean, and a post-generator if needed).

There should be an "ISSUES" file which gives an overview of the status of the module, and outlines specific known issues.

nursery would contain pairs that build but that have not been developed to an advanced stage.

incubator would contain pairs with pieces of translators or analysers.

Caveats

  • This will not operate retroactively: existing pairs under development will not be moved, unless with with the agreement of the developers, or if the pair is deemed to be 'abandoned' (that is, has not been developed for a continuous period of no less than two months).
  • We do not propose to formalise transition between modules: we consider that a matter for separate, later consideration, if it should prove necessary.

Comments

Comments on the proposal are welcome. Please sign your comments using ~~~~

Voting

Please note that voting is only open to PMC members. Please vote by signing (~~~) in the relevant section.

Agree

Disagree