Using single PRs for minor fixes affecting all localisations

[shurup]

Hi everyone! I'd like to raise the controversial issue we discussed a few times already, but it still sounds relevant to me… Do we really need to bring any changes to each localisation in separate PRs? Just recently, I witnessed a couple of good examples where I believe we don't need all that extra effort and resources:

• Upgrade mysql image version to allow multi-arch env #50822
• fix: change the ports scope in the network policy examples #50994

Both PRs only bring minor technical changes to listings. Specifically, the first one changes the container image version of mysql that will be deployed, and the second one fixes the YAML formatting issue. Both authors were requested to limit their changes to the English version only, as we usually do. Then, a bunch of new PRs will be raised (for each localisation, for each such case), increasing the number of commits, PRs, deploy previews… — essentially, the amount of computing resources, time and people involved in all of this. As we can also see, each time we have to explain these things (i.e. "please, split your PR into separate PRs") to new contributors. Is it really worth that? Personally, I feel that the current workflow generates a lot of unnecessary burden.

Surely, the scope of changes allowed for this simplified approach (via a single PR affecting all localisations) should be strictly limited.

• The two most common cases I see as applicable are: listings (as in the examples above) and links (to other doc pages or outdated websites).
• Perhaps something related to meta tags and formatting should also be covered. Not sure whether it's a common case now.
• Definitely, anything affecting the localised text can't be changed following this simplified approach.

Additionally, we can add some organisational workflow to such changes, e.g. by inviting all the localisation teams to see these PRs. Maybe even asking them to LGTM the PRs, yet limiting the timeframe when it's possible to do so — otherwise, we'll simply be stuck with minor changes for everyone since some localisation teams don't have enough resources to process them quickly.

I think the biggest argument here is that if we allow such a simplified approach, some localisation teams' specific (already established?) workflows might be affected. If so, can't we agree with the teams that their workflows should consider this rule for a good cause? Would it be too difficult to implement?

[Andygol]

Oops. That the case in favour to use Localization Translation Platform that tracks and apply such changes effortless.

RE: #45209 and #45756