Message-ID: <CAEjAshpst3P45mJnN-megUXU4bkAUhJEohD5oEfP4GxbsHgUxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:31:26 +0900
From:	SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>
To:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	oleg@...hat.com, pranith kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH memory-barriers.txt 6/7] documentation: Add Korean translation

Well, looks like there is neither strong positive opinion nor strong negative
opinion.  So, I will post the patch again with the suggested workflow soon.


Thanks,
SeongJae Park

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:17:17AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:04:47AM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> >> <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 05:11:24PM +0900, SeongJae Park wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> From: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> This commit adds Korean version of memory-barriers.txt document.  The
>> >> >> >> header is refered to HOWTO Korean version.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj38.park@...il.com>
>> >> >> >> Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
>> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> >> >> >> Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>> >> >> >> ---
>> >> >> >>  Documentation/ko_KR/memory-barriers.txt | 3048 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> >> >>  1 file changed, 3048 insertions(+)
>> >> >> >>  create mode 100644 Documentation/ko_KR/memory-barriers.txt
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So we seem to have little precedent for such big translations, so I'd like to have
>> >> >> > higher level buy-in first, before applying such changes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We do have some ko_KR material upstream already:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >  triton:~/tip> ls -l Documentation/ko_KR/
>> >> >> >  total 52
>> >> >> >  -rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo 35017 Apr  6 09:02 HOWTO
>> >> >> >  -rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo 12741 Apr  6 09:02 stable_api_nonsense.txt
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ... but that's introductory level material.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Fundamentally English is the language of the Linux kernel, all in-code comments
>> >> >> > are in English. Furthermore, people who know English and don't speak Korean won't
>> >> >> > be able to fix the ko_KR side of the documentation - so most of the time there's
>> >> >> > going to be some lag. It's also going to be harder by maintainers to review
>> >> >> > patches to these files, especially if they don't speak Korean.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Basically, I agree with your opinion.  However, I still believe translations
>> >> >> would be worth to make them because of two reasons below:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1. Lots of kernel programmers are still suffering from English.
>> >> >> In this context, I am saying about not only hackers in this mailing list but
>> >> >> also programmers in wider Linux kernel ecosystem including students
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> employees in corporations that do not have interesting at pushing their works
>> >> >> to upstream.  For them, translations can be very helpful and may attract them
>> >> >> to join upstream.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2. Quality of translation can be maintained via community.
>> >> >> Thanks to openness of Linux kernel community, translations will be maintained
>> >> >> via community people.  If nobody updates a translation for long time, I think
>> >> >> it's death of the translation, not every translation.
>> >> >> Also, giving caution to the maintainer of each translation for frequent update
>> >> >> and quality of patches may help the problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The help, attraction for still suffering programmers and maintenance quality of
>> >> >> translations could be little or nearly nothing, especially for documents that
>> >> >> are not introductory level.  Despite of the possibility, I believe the
>> >> >> opportunity cannot be ignored.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also, for defense of this specific translation, I think every kernel programmer
>> >> >> must read memory-barriers.txt at once.  Because the nature of parallel
>> >> >> programming is hard to understand for first time, it should be read widely and
>> >> >> easy to read.  I think that's why this translation is necessary especially.
>> >> >
>> >> > One approach in the meantime would be to maintain the Korean version out
>> >> > of tree.  One way to make this more effective would be to get together
>> >> > with other non-Korean non-English people and work out a common repository
>> >> > and workflow for translations of the more complex pieces of documentation.
>> >> > A long-term out-of-tree demonstration that translation would work well
>> >> > and would keep up with mainline might help build confidence in the
>> >> > practicality of this approach.
>> >>
>> >> I think the approach would be reasonable.  In actual, I also maintaining my
>> >> github public repository for the patch.  Only one part that arguable is _how_
>> >> to demonstrate and prove it, in my think.  Follow update for one or two month?
>> >> Get one or two Signed-off-by from the language speaker?  I'm not sure about
>> >> that though.
>> >
>> > Excellent questions, and I believe that trying it out will be part of
>> > learning the answer.
>>
>> Good point.  How about this workflow?
>>
>> 1. Translation contributor should maintain his (public) tree for the
>>    translation work.
>> 2. After the translation has finished and updated, report the result in patch
>>    format to the mailinglist.
>> 2-1. The report should contain information about the original working tree and
>>      information about guarantee of its fast update and quality to move hearts
>>      of original documentation maintainers.
>> 3. If it didn't moved the hearts, maintain the tree continuously for some
>>    period and goto step 2.
>>
>> I think the workflow is almost same with the repeatedly updated and
>> periodically posted patchsets that including version difference information.
>> Only one difference is that it should explain itself about its translation
>> quality and future update.  Because the workflow has already proved to work
>> well, I believe my proposal will work well, too.
>>
>> Once a translation following the workflow has merged, it can be a start of the
>> precedents that Ingo said and will help future translators and maintainers.
>
> It does sound plausible to me, but given that I have never done any
> similar translation projects, I cannot be very confident in my judgment
> in this area...
>
>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>
>> Thanks,
>> SeongJae Park
>>
>> >
>> >> > I do like the idea of translations -- that is after all why I queued
>> >> > your patch -- but to Ingo's point, in my experience, there are a lot
>> >> > more people who start translations than finish them.  We currently do
>> >> > not have a good way to tell which translations are no longer keeping up
>> >> > and thus need to be pruned, and we would need one.  For the introductory
>> >> > documents, a large number of native speakers of the language in question
>> >> > could help out.  For the more difficult documents, the pool of potential
>> >> > contributors can be quite small.
>> >> >
>> >> > To see this, think about how you would judge a translation of
>> >> > memory-barriers.txt into (say) Malayalam.  Then expand that to include
>> >> > (say) Telegu, Kannada, Orya, Assamese, Marathi, Konkani, Gujarati,
>> >> > Urdu, Koshur, Dogri, Ladakhi, Manipuri, Garo, Mizo, Odia, and Tripuri.
>> >> > Several of these languages have more speakers than does Korean, obscure
>> >> > though they may be.
>> >> >
>> >> > I suspect that this is one of the issues that Ingo is worried about.
>> >>
>> >> Yep, I totally agree about the point.  Despite of that, I believe the small
>> >> chance cannot be ignored.  For some non-English speaker, translation is really
>> >> helpful even though quality of the translation is bad.  I think that's why lots
>> >> of global corporations are trying to keep translation of their product and
>> >> website despite of its low quality.  Also, in some point (many people may not
>> >> agree with this, but...), we can think appearance of voluntary translation
>> >> itself means community in the language are already grown up in some level.
>> >>
>> >> In short, adding translation of non-introductory documents could lost quality
>> >> but helps someone and scaling of Linux ecosystem.
>> >>
>> >> By the way, I want to make clear that this is just _my_ opinion and anybody
>> >> would disagree.  And, when opinions are conflicting, I think decisioning is
>> >> maintainers' role and I will not make objection about the decision.
>> >
>> > Well, given that we haven't actually tried it yet, all we have are
>> > our various diverse opinions.  Jon Corbet did sound supportive, and in
>> > his role as documentation maintainer, that should give you some basis
>> > for optimism.
>> >
>> >                                                         Thanx, Paul
>> >
>>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists