Re: (forw) Status of po-debconf translations for language nl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
| On Thursday 06 January 2005 06:58, Christian Perrier wrote:
|
|>Hello, fellow Dutch translators...
Hello Christian, hello list
|>You will find below the result of a run of the dl10n-txt utility which
|>is part of the dl10n project on Alioth.
|>
|>A part of this utility is based on Tim Dijkstra work...
|
|
|>However, please let me mention the addition of a feature you don't
|>seem to use : the [BTS] messages. We have added a new style of
|>messages for letting the spider know that a given translation, after
|>the LCFC step, has indeed been sent to the BTS.
|>
|>The principle is simple : a message with "[BTS]
|>po-debconf://<package>/fr.po #<bug_nr>".
|
|
| These are used, it's just that they are usually send directly to the
| coordination robot at <l10n@famdijkstra.org>, and not to the list.
| They do show up at dutch.debian.net (our statuspage) though.
But they have a syntax of [BTS#<bug_nr>] po-debconf://<package>
|>Thus, the robot will add a new status named "bts", and will then show
|>it, along with the number of days since the bug report. The robot also
|>has the option of *not* showing the packages in "bts" status, thus
|>reducing the size of its display.
|>
|>Of course, the robot will then automagically check the BTS in order to
|>see whether a given report has been closed (or fixed by a NMU).
The robot at dutch.debian.net doesn't mention a translation as DONE if
the bug is fixed, only if it's closed...
|>Given the below results, it does not seem you're using this style of
|>message, so I take this opportunity for mentioning it to you. This may
|>be of great help, for instance, in tracking down lazy
|>maintainers...:-)
|>
|>Please let me know (don't forget CC'ing me) what you think about using
|>this feature.
|
| I personally prefer not flooding the mailing list with BTS messages, but
| sending those directly to the robot instead. (off course if we decide
| otherwise, a filter is set easily enough)
So maybe we could send it either to te list or to the 2 robots (but I
don't know if the other robot has an address nor what it would be)
|>Please also let me know whether you would be interested by such report
|>being sent weekly or so (unless you already do something similar on
|>your own side!).
|
| I don't see it as a necessity (as we have the above mentioned status page
| doing more or less the same), but I wouldn't mind either.
I would welcome such report.
Maybe we should merge the features of the 2 robots? I would like to
help, but I can't promiss anything in the near future as I'm very busy
at the moment ... I can try though ;-)
Cheers
Luk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFB3Rg75UTeB5t8Mo0RArU+AKCyEwcY1jgeejZJaLCjDwEm0r4PxgCfSNlg
izphh6VAGRY7ddDFbvBg02E=
=NIN1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: