(keeping both lists CC'ed again and, for that reason, I'm entirely quoting you) Quoting Matthias Julius (lists@julius-net.net): > Eddy Petri?or <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com> writes: > > > Matthias Julius wrote: > >> Eddy Petri?or <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Thomas Huriaux wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> (05/03/2007): > >>>>> The reviewer sends a message with "[ITT] po-debconf://<package>/en.po" > >>>> I would say ITR (Intend to review) instead of ITT (adding tags to the > >>>> various bots is a very easy task). > >>> Also dropping the final "en.po" seems appropriate. > >> > >> Instead, use the path of the *.templates file. > > > > That is not needed since there is only one template per source > > package, so is enough to say '[ITR] po-debconf://package' > > Well, it depends. There can be multiple *.templates files - one for > each binary package. All the strings then get lumped up into one > templates.pot. And according to Christian's proposal the reviewers > will review the *.templates files. > > In many cases they might be too small to be worth reviewing > separately. But, there are some large ones. > > At the end the *.templates files should be kept in sync with each > other to take advantage of common strings to reduce the work of > translators. And translators have to deal with the combined > templates.pot anyway. So, my idea above is probably overkill after > all. You may just ignore it. > > Besides, there are few en.po files in the archive. Do those actually > make sense? If so you should distinguish between them and templates. > One could use pot-debconf://<package>. I like that idea, yes. The various ITF, RFR, etc. mails would then contain either one or several *.templates files....and reviews should also include or or more unified diffs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature