Re: adding infos to pseudo-urls.wml
Stéphane Blondon wrote:
>>> <dd>Sent to indicate that you plan to work on the translation; used to
>>> avoid double work.<br />
>>> In case someone send an <tt>[itt]</tt> message after you started the translation (you send the itt message, isn't it?), send a message immediately on the mailing list to avoid useless work.</dd>
>>
>> Sorry, I don't understand this.
>
> I rewrite the sentence to:
> If you send an <tt>[itt]</tt> message and somebody else send
> another [itt] for the same file,
Mostly tense trouble, I think.
If you have already sent an [ITT] message, and somebody else then
sends another [ITT] for the same file...
> please send a new message immediately on the mailing list to remind
> him you have the priority.
> The goal is to avoid useless work.
(Not "him" in Alice's case...)
So if Alice and Bob happen to send colliding ITTs more or less
simultaneously, they then *each* need to send an immediate "reminder"
to the list as well, reiterating their claim? This sounds like an
annoying rule.
> I hope it's better.
> If it's not the case, this is the process I try to describe:
> - Alice send an itt to translate a file.
> - Few days after Alice, Bob send an itt because he missed the previous
> Alice's e-mail.
> - Alice send a new message to say she started to translate it before.
Does this kind of procedural failure happen so often that there needs
to be a special procedure for it? (And what happens when that
procedure fails?)
I would again suggest a subtler tweak: underline the function of ITTs
as a way of "reserving" tasks.
Sent to register a claim on a translation that you plan to work on;
used to avoid double work.
>>> Used to put a translation on hold, for example when more changes
>>> are due, so any work done on updates now is likely to be wasted.<br />
>>> It could occur when the package maintainer made a mistake or the translation is available somewhere else.
>>
>> Those are really unclear examples. If the "for example" in the
>> existing text wasn't enough, improve that.
>
> I tried a new sentence. Hope it's better:
>
> Used to put a translation on hold, for example when more changes
> are due (if there is errors about translation in the package or the
> translation is available somewhere else).<br />
> The goal of this status is to avoid unuseful work.
If the "errors about translation" scenario is talking about problems
that are likely to result in the original untranslated text changing,
then I understand it, but it isn't really doing much to make things
clearer... and I still don't see what's going on in the "translation
is available somewhere else" scenario. Maybe if I've just discovered
that Ubuntu has a translated version? Though surely in that case it's
not "on hold" so much as "cancelled as unnecessary" (and I would just
attach the Ubuntu translations to my message).
Trying to whittle it down to one clear example:
Used to put a translation on hold when there's a danger that
any work done now may be wasted, for example when problems
have been found that require changes in the original text.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: