Quoting Frans Pop (elendil@planet.nl): > I have done some first testing with the new script and committed some > changes. Please check them (preferably before the next l10n-sync run :-). I won't have time for this. So if you have some doubts, better de-activate the l10n-sync runs.... > 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 That's already done in the script, IIRC. > 2) update that against the grand master POT file That is not done > 3) merge that against the sublevel POT files to split it That seems an interesting idea, yes. > This would also be an optimization because it makes the current "Merge with > other levels" step unnecessary. The only problem could be that translations Yes. And these are pretty slow, so it would speed up the script, certainly. > 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. I was tempted to remove this, indeed. That option was added at the very beginning of the development of that script to keep the possibility of working this way in case some conflicts problems arose. That never happened and, indeed, this would trigger a lot of commits. So, I agree that it can be dropped, yes. > > > 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"? unique BIG file.....typo. So, yes, integrated master file. > So basically you're saying that _all_ translations will have to use the new > sublevels? Yes, from the current way the script works. > 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. Given that changes are anyway small for already complete languages that would not change much for these translators. > > 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? Yes, but given the way l10n-stats works, this should be very easy to do. --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature