пошёл (Ё)

Done.

Actually, there wasn't any real need to change this sentence. This is not the case when we can't go without "ё".

It's like writing diacritics in contexts where locals usually do not. Very good for a system like tatoeba. It's easy to write an algorithm that would not distinct between е/ё, but it's harder to put ё, if it is not in the text.

I see your point but Tatoeba is not for machines, it's for living people including those who are interested in examples from real life. There are Russians who always use "ё" and there are Russians who use it at times only. So why not reflect this in the corpus?

Then there might be two variants (that'd be weird, but I wouldn't complain). The ё-variant is the main, of course, and is a must.

Of course there might be two variants, but "ё" one is optional, just like in real life. :-)

ё one is the right one, not using ё\е distinction is an option, not using ё. The modern tendency is towards using ё, see the ru.wikipedia practice and other such things.

I've heard nothing about such tendency. Wikipedia and similar encyclopaedia-like resources are not good examples of common practice, I'm afraid. I prefer sticking to good old Russian orthography rules: http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=11
OK, it seems I bumped into a "ё"-adherent. I'm not sure if we ever find common ground about this topic. :-) But I hope we could agree that we should not change correct sentences.

> Very good for a system like tatoeba.

No, it’s not. Tatoeba aims to represent the language as it is used. If ё can be sometimes used and sometimes not, we should have sentences showing both usages. Otherwise, it will not be representative of how Russian is written.

I agree with sharptoothed that the change was unneccessary.

I kept out of the discussion up till now.
I believe you would guess that as Russian is a foreign language for me, I would like to see those "ё" marked wherever they should appear, as it's not always easy to know, or even guess, which "e" is an ordinary "e", and which is a "ё".

I would contribute to the discussion (maybe - feel free to correct me) the axiom that every "ё" can also be written as a "e", and then those who do not know that it should be a "ё" won't be able to know that. So, for their sake, let us mark it wherever it applies.

This is easier than adding a comment below a sentence, stating that the "e" in one of the words should be pronounced as a "ё".

> every "ё" can also be written as a "e"

Not every "ё", Eldad. :-) There are cases where we are not supposed to replace it with "е".

Well well :)
Could you enumerate them? :) (this is what I meant when I said "please correct me if I'm wrong").

And as a continuation of what I suggested above - one needn't write the "ё" if it's not a must, but we can add another variant (the same sentence) with the "ё" marked in its proper place. This, I believe, would accommodate all sides in the discussion. ☺

OK, here they are (according to the latest recommendations you can find here http://orthographia.ru/orfografia.php?sid=11)
We use ё
1) to avoid wrong word recognition (всё vs. все, нёбо vs. небо, etc.)
2) to indicate correct pronunciation of a rare word or word that is being often pronounced incorrectly (гёзы, сёрфинг, флёр, etc.) including wrong accentuation (побасёнка, приведённый, осуждённый, etc.)
3) in proper names - family names, place names

:-)

Thank you very much.

You're always welcome, Eldad. :-)

» as it's not always easy to know, or even guess,
» which "e" is an ordinary "e", and which is a "ё".

Very good point, just what I wanted to say, but my English didn't help me much.
As we are writing translations, it'd be good to show the „full“ orthography, not the „shortened“ one.

» всё vs. все, нёбо vs. небо

The all-e-users most often don't use ё in such cases too.
That makes the all-ё-orthography easier and more informative in the cases like we have here.