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

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

Quoting Frans Pop (elendil@planet.nl):

> For now I'm mostly interested in discussion of the issues I mention in the 
> comments in the big new section (which basically replaces the old section 
> that follows it).

Let's try:

> +		# FJP: Why was this being done in reverse order?
> +		for i in `seq 1 $NUMLEVELS`; do
> +			if [ -f sublevel${i}/${lang}.po ]; then
> +				list="$list sublevel${i}/${lang}.po"
> +			fi
> +		done

The reverse order was probably a logic error by me. So your change is
definitely correct

> +		# We need the date of the last update of a sublevel PO file


> +		# Preferably we should also determine the name of the person who
> +		# did the last update to a sublevel (for changelogs)

That would certainly be better. I fear it could complicated the code
quite a lot and, indeed, the translation is mostly a team work. I
personnally don't give much importance to Last-Translator.

So, well, if we find a *not too complicated* way to allow for
different last-translator, why not. But I don't think it's worth a
great effort.

> +		# When updating a sublevel PO file, we should really retain
> +		# all the old headers and only update the POT-Creation-Date...

Yes, definitely. There may be specific comments, or whatever

> +				# Do we really want to loose obsolete strings?
> +				# Shouldn't that be up to the translator?
> +				msgattrib --width=79 --no-obsolete sublevel${i}/${lang}.po.new >sublevel${i}/${lang}.po

I should have put a comment when I added this. I know there was a


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: