Difference between revisions of "PMC proposals/Repository reorganisation"

From Apertium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 14: Line 14:
 
Seconded by: [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]]
 
Seconded by: [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]]
   
==In Detail==
+
==In detail==
   
 
<tt>trunk</tt> would contain pairs in "release" and "[alpha|pre]-release" status, and would exclude unreleased language pairs/software.
 
<tt>trunk</tt> would contain pairs in "release" and "[alpha|pre]-release" status, and would exclude unreleased language pairs/software.
Line 41: Line 41:
 
=== Agree ===
 
=== Agree ===
   
* '''Agree''' [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]]
+
* '''Agree''' - [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]]
* '''Agree''' [[User:Jimregan|Jimregan]]
+
* '''Agree''' - [[User:Jimregan|Jimregan]]
   
 
===Disagree===
 
===Disagree===

Revision as of 09:34, 9 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: Francis Tyers

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