Re: translation-check.wml
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:40:05PM +0200, Javier Fdz-Sanguino Pen~a wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 02:13:03PM +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > file=$1
> > > > orig_revision = CVS_revision( english/$file )
> > > > for lang in $languages
> > > > do
> > > > trans_revision = CVS_revision( $lang/$file )
> > > > if ( ( orig_revision - trans_revision ) > N
> > > > && ( orig_revision - trans_revision ) < N+1 )
> > > > then rebuild $lang/$file;
> > > > done
> > > > -------------------------------------------------
>
> Please note that the CVS_revision of a language might differ a lot
> from the english one but be in sync.
Oh, yes, my description wasn't detailed enough. I know, that it should get
the revision from the <!-- translation X.X --> tag for the translated files.
:-)
> > > Should we also add something to remove the translation altogether if it is
> > > too old? This could be done by having the script send mail to debian-www
> > > stating the translation is extremely out of date. Someone could then
> > > remove the wml file from cvs.
> >
>
> That begs the question, what is best: a translation out of date or
> none at all? From my perspective I would say the first.
I guess that knowing that translation is outdated and knowing the location
of up-to-date english version would be best, when the tranlation is
outdated. This way the user can compare these two versions and get some
general idea what should be on the page.
regards
Marcin
--
+--------------------------------+ The reason we come up with new versions
|Marcin Owsiany | is not to fix bugs. It's the stupidest
|porridge@pandora.info.bielsko.pl| reason to buy a new version
+--------------------------------+ I ever heard. - Bill Gates
Reply to: