On Tuesday 12 December 2006 12:22, Clytie Siddall wrote: > Shouldn't this all be arranged with the maintainer for iso-codes? Hi, I'm one of the maintainers of iso-codes, so let me clear a few things up. First, the Debian SVN is in fact the upstream SVN. We're releasing new "upstream" versions from exactly that SVN repository. Also, we keep the Debian specific parts in the same repository, that might explain the misunderstanding. Concerning the ambiguity with the TP, I have to admit that I personally regard the files in the Debian SVN repository as more important, simply because those are the files which get released with the iso-codes tarball. We offer the possibility to translate via TP, because some translators did not want to work through other ways - which is perfectly fine. In order to get as many translations as possible, we accept the possible ambiguity. Unfortunatly, the Debian SVN and the TP are not completely in sync, because we (the iso-codes maintainers) have no possibility to keep the translations at the TP current. That would have to be done with someone from each specific language team. In most cases, there is noone, that's why the files at the TP are more likely to be outdated than the Debian SVN files. All in all, if in doubt, use the Debian SVN. Or write to us, we're normally quite responsive with regard to translations -- after all, that's the main reason why iso-codes exist ... ;-) Regards, Tobias -- Tobias Toedter | Absolutely nothing should be concluded from these Hamburg, Germany | figures except that no conclusion can be drawn from them.
Attachment:
pgpj4V2IC6T0j.pgp
Description: PGP signature