Documentation & Translation schedule review

[John Poelstra]

John J. McDonough said the following on 12/22/2009 06:13 AM Pacific Time:
 > On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 10:57 -0800, John Poelstra wrote:
 >
 >> I'm still not clear what our starting point for tomorrow night's 
meeting
 >> is.  Since I haven't seen a response (forgive me if I missed one) I'm
 >> assuming we will be using (#b):
 >>
 >> 
http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-13-draft/f-13-docs-trans-schedule-review.txt
 >>
 >> I have already put it on gobby.  Feel free to start editing gobby now.
 >
 > I had kind of hoped that you would fix the dependencies on your
 > schedule.  We are still building rpms later than we need them.
 >

It will be good to talk about this in real time tonight :)  It seems 
like we both have different understandings of what should happen next 
and I'm getting the sense we might be talking past each other which can 
definitely be frustrating.

What do you mean by "fixing the dependencies?"

I understood from the beginning that the dates were wrong, but I was 
looking to you to supply the correct dates.  I don't have a large stake 
in what the dates are so instead of me continuing to blindly propose 
dates I wanted you to tell me what they should be.  I was never clear if 
the schedule you proposed were the actual dates you wanted me to add to 
my schedule or simply an illustration or brainstorm you were sharing.

It would help me a lot if you could be extremely specific with what you 
are needing or expecting from me.  Something like, "John, please take 
the dates for the release notes from the bottom of the html page I 
created and replace tasks #__ to #__ on the schedule you created with 
them.  Have the releases notes start/depend on task #___ from release 
engineering."

 >> Note, the names of some of the releng milestones (Beta Freeze and Final
 >> Freeze) changed to match:
 >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Poelstra/Key_Milestones
 >>
 >> What can really help make tomorrow's meeting tremendously faster is to
 >> populate the drafted version on gobby in advance with what you think 
the
 >> dates should be to address the concerns you raised at:
 >> 
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-December/msg00040.html 

 >> Then we we can spend most of our time critiquing the draft instead of
 >> going line by line which will take a lot more time.
 >
 > I'm not nearly as concerned with the dates as with the dependencies.

I'd like to understand this better. What do you mean by "the 
dependencies?"  What problem are you trying to solve by seeing these 
dependencies?

To me the dependencies are inherent in the dates you propose.... one 
task follows another and can't start unless the previous task was 
completed. As set forth each task with its start and end date, I'm 
assuming this is being taken into account.

All this focus on the "dependencies" is new to me.  We've done several 
previous detailed reviews of the docs schedule and you are the first to 
raise this as such an important issue.  I want to help, but I'm failing 
to see how to provide you this information or what problem you're trying 
to solve.

 >> If you'd like to call out task dependencies, maybe add that as part of
 >> the task name in ( ).
 >>
 >> I spent some more time today trying to understand the issues you are
 >> raising in the email and
 >> http://jjmcd.fedorapeople.org/F13-RelNotes-MajorTasks.html but it is 
not
 >> completely clear to me if these are the real dates you want to use 
or if
 >> this was just a "brainstorm."
 >
 > Again, I'm not nearly as concerned with the dates as with the
 > dependencies.  I've put some comments in the gobby doc, but it is pretty
 > hard to follow in that format.

I haven't found an easy way to review and create schedules virtually. In 
person we could have probably finished all of this in an hour. It is 
tedious and really not that fun of task.  Sometimes I have to print a 
schedule off, turn off my computer screen to fully concentrate and walk 
it through with a calendar nearby.

What format would be more helpful for you?

 >
 > My main concerns are:
 >   - Build RPM before RelEng needs it, not after
 >   - Translate before build RPM
 >   - Write before translate
 >
 > We seem to have the second two down, but the gobby sked still has us
 > building RPMs after RelEng needs them.

Yes, I'm waiting for you to insert whatever you want the dates to be.

 > I do think we need a few days for the beta RPM, and probably the RC RPM.
 > It might make sense to make an RPM for RelEng's test compose, and leave
 > say 3 days for that, then make another RPM for the final compose.  That
 > one we could do in a day.  It only takes a few hours to make an RPM, but
 > we always seem to run into some sort of issue.  I figure if we deal with
 > those issues for test compose, we can allow translation to continue and
 > when we build for final compose we will have dealt with any issues that
 > arise.

Please insert/change whatever you think the dates should be.

 > We also don't quite understand what our interface with L10N looks like
 > this go. there are a number of issues we need to work there:
 >
 >  - Is the new Transifex finally there?
 >  - If not, does L10N do the POT merging/PO splitting?
 >  - Do we do a ton of branches like we did for F12?
 >  - Does L10N make their own htmls as needed?
 >  - Does L10N do the push to docs.fp.o?
 >
 > --McD
 >
 >

Thanks for being patient with me.  I really do want to find a better way 
to do this :)

John