[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Splitting D-I translation in "sublevels": ready infrastructure

I have done some first testing with the new script and committed some 
changes. Please check them (preferably before the next l10n-sync run :-).

On Sunday 23 December 2007, Christian Perrier wrote:
> A test run of l10n-sync gave:
> sublevel 1: 515 strings
> sublevel 2: 465 strings
> sublevel 3: 397 strings
> sublevel 4: 168 strings
> sublevel 5: 176 strings
> The total of 1721 strings is higher than the current 1682 strings
> because some identical strings are now in different sublevels. However
> the sync script is intelligent enough to reuse translations from lower
> sublevels in high sublevels.

There was a problem with the sublevel 1 file. For example the string
"Cancel" was not included in sublevel 1, but in lower sublevel because it 
had comments for both. And as I said earlier, I did not really like the 
string duplication.

Both issues should now be fixed:
sublevel 1: 534 untranslated messages.
sublevel 2: 450 untranslated messages.
sublevel 3: 389 untranslated messages.
sublevel 4: 144 untranslated messages.
sublevel 5: 165 untranslated messages.

Total: exactly 1682 :-)

I'm now happy with the way the templates are generated, but think there are 
still some issues and optimizations possible in the following steps. I'll 
look at these next, so please don't activate yet.

For example, I have doubts that an existing translation would in all cases 
survive a change in the sublevel of a string.
The solution could be to:
1) merge all sublevel PO files into a temporary master PO file
2) update that against the grand master POT file
3) merge that against the sublevel POT files to split it

This would also be an optimization because it makes the current "Merge with 
other levels" step unnecessary. The only problem could be that translations 
for obsolete strings are lost, but maybe that could be resolved somehow.

General question. Should the ATOMIC_COMMITS option maybe just be dropped? 
I'm not sure why you'd want to use it and dropping it would significantly 
improve the readability of the code.

> What would change?
> -----------------
> There would be NO possibility to keep the unique bug file (that is
> meant to avoid complicating the sync script)

Eh, "unique bug file"? I guess you mean "integrated grand master PO file"?
So basically you're saying that _all_ translations will have to use the new 

I think that it should be possible to support it in the l10n-sync script, 
but keeping the option would complicate a lot of other things (including 
stats and the message about incomplete translations we were considering), 
so I think a forced switch would be good.

It should also significantly reduce the size of l10n-sync commits because of 
line width changes after translator commits.

> Will the current "levels" change?
> ---------------------------------
> Probably not. We could probably move sublevel 4 and sublevel 5 to
> "level 4" or "level 5" as these translation are clearly less
> important. That is feasible quite easily and would be more realistic.

Well, you'll probably at least have to make some changes in the way the 
stats are generated when this is activated. Correct?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: