Christian Perrier wrote: > OK. Then I consider re-generating the master PO files in the next > days. They will be first updated from the individual packages PO > files, then merged with the master PO files from the unstable branch. > > If this is made carefully (my duty..:-))), this should not break > existing translations. > > However, for sure, this will change individual PO files in d-i > packages from the sarge branch. Most often because, in the meantime, > some translators did QA on unstable. > > The key question is thus indeed : what will we release from, starting > from now? > > If a package needs an update for whatever reason, will we first commit > the change to the sarge branch, then release from there? > > Or is there a chance that a package is released from unstable, then > moved to testing, then updated in the sarge branch? > > This changes the message I will give to translators: > > -in the first case, I can tell them they can treat both branches as > completely separate branches > > -in the latter case, I have to tell them that *any* change which is > made to sarge MUST be made also in unstable if the relevant string is > in both versions > > > My own advice is that we should probably start by releasing only from > sarge, but I may miss several information to make a really motivated > advice. I think that releasing from sarge makes sense now. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature