Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference is very small
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña:
> I've found out (the hard way) that translations are being removed
> from the website regardless after six months of not being updated
> regardless of the changes done in the original file.
That is correct, and is entirely the intention.
> This is quite counter-productive, since some version changes in the
> english wml files are sometimes just cosmetic and the translation was
> quite alright when it was removed.
And sometimes the changes are quite extensive. How is the script
supposed to be able to tell the difference, without empowering it with
some kind of artificial intelligence?
> Could the cron scripts doing this (if any) be modified so that they
> only remove translations that are _way_ too out-dated
IMHO six months without any reaction from the translation team *is*
"way too out-dated". Personally, I would have liked to have the limit
be even stricter.
> This would be consistent with the 'translation-check' header idea I
> introduced four years ago....
The translation-check header is already used- when the translation
falls behind, it gets a notice on the page, and after six months the
translation is purged. We do get enough complaints and bug reports
about broken links and misinformation which is due to translations not
being updated in time that I believe that the current practice is
warranted.
The original translation-check didn't add the notice after the first
update to the English page, believing that that update would always be
considered "minor". Unfortunately, that assumption was disproved over
and over again, so it was changed to display the notice directly. In
the same way, having to wait for several revisions isn't going to work.
Some pages get heavy updates done once and are then not changed for
another three years. If the translations were allowed to lag behind as
much as some have been doing over the years from the more inactive
teams, it would be really bad.
The autopurge was added to fix a problem. It would have been nice if it
wasn't needed, but it is.
> a translator redid all the work when only a few changes were needed
> simply because the out of date (only 1 version difference) version
> had been removed in a (semi?)automatic way.
It's trivial to check the CVS on whether there already is an old
version that has been purged, and to resurrect it. Ignorance is not an
excuse.
--
\\//
Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Reply to: