Closed
Bug 728066
Opened 13 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
Document sign-off process and UI, with glossary
Categories
(Mozilla Localizations Graveyard :: Documentation, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: Pike, Assigned: gueroJeff)
References
()
Details
We should have a doc on how the sign-off process works, and what's all the jargon about accepted, suggested, rejected etc.
Also see http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.l10n/browse_frm/thread/6beb0195522baa8a# for a start.
I felt like this ties in to what we're building and where when replying to Cedric, but it might be that "you get these builds there off of that revision" is a separate doc.
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
+1 :D
Assignee | ||
Updated•13 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → jbeatty
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
Drafted guide to sign-offs and technical reviews and linked URL to this bug. Please review and add any comments to this bug.
Goal: this will be taken out of draft by March 30th. Any suggested corrections need to be in to me by March 30th at the very latest.
Thank you!
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
I think the target audiences for the initial technical review and the sign-off processes are rather different, should we really document those side-by-side?
Also, technically, I'm not sure we should double the documentation around the technical review, right now it's part of this document as well as the process notes on wikimo.
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Axel Hecht [:Pike] from comment #3)
> I think the target audiences for the initial technical review and the
> sign-off processes are rather different, should we really document those
> side-by-side?
>
> Also, technically, I'm not sure we should double the documentation around
> the technical review, right now it's part of this document as well as the
> process notes on wikimo.
I've separated the page into two. Take a look at these compared with the single page. What are your thoughts?
- https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Localization_technical_reviews
- https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Localization_sign-off_reviews
Concerning the doc on wikimo, since it outlines technical specifications for these reviews, I'm migrating the content to the MDN, which conforms with the new information models.
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•13 years ago
|
||
There's still a host of copied data on the two pages, makes it hard to comment on the actual comtent so far.
I'd not compare reviews and signoffs at all, fwiw.
Also, I expect a bit of flak on the "high technical quality". People expect spellcheckers and consistency here, not so much parameter formats. I'd rather say that localizing Firefox is hard, and the reviews try to catch errors that would lead to a binary that can't be tested by the community, or that are hard to track from the visual outcome to the origin of the problem, like for example dialog size problems.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Axel Hecht [:Pike] from comment #5)
> There's still a host of copied data on the two pages, makes it hard to
> comment on the actual comtent so far.
>
I tried to make the content relatively distinct without compromising the consistency in topic structures. Maybe we should have a call about this tomorrow morning. I'll schedule it and ping you about it.
> I'd not compare reviews and signoffs at all, fwiw.
I think the comparison helps put it into perspective for anyone unfamiliar with sign-offs. Having their functions/characteristics listed side by side like that drives home the contrast in the two reviews and clearly emphasizes to the user to not expect sign-offs to be the same as technical reviews.
>
> Also, I expect a bit of flak on the "high technical quality". People expect
> spellcheckers and consistency here, not so much parameter formats. I'd
> rather say that localizing Firefox is hard, and the reviews try to catch
> errors that would lead to a binary that can't be tested by the community, or
> that are hard to track from the visual outcome to the origin of the problem,
> like for example dialog size problems.
I can change "high technical quatlity" :-)
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•13 years ago
|
||
Removed the single page from the wiki, made serious adjustments to the two individual review pages, as well as to the release page of the quick start guide (https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Localization_Quick_Start_Guide/Release_phase#Technical_and_sign-off_reviews).
Thoughts?
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•12 years ago
|
||
Pike,
I know we talked last week about some corrections that need to be made in the review pages, but I was focussed on being able to log in to MDN and have forgotten what those corrections were. Will you itemized them in a comment below please?
Reporter | ||
Comment 9•12 years ago
|
||
there's been too much of the sign-off review details in the initial technical review piece. Also the screen shot of the sign-off view on elmo won't help on the initial technical review piece.
On the sign-off review page, the screenshot can also be more helpful, I hope that in the next session with matjazz we'll come up with a hand-crafted screen shot.
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•8 years ago
|
||
No longer relevant, as sign-offs are done by l10n drivers only.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Updated•6 years ago
|
Product: Mozilla Localizations → Mozilla Localizations Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•