[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: proofreading the installation-guide

Baptiste Jammet wrote:
> Dixit Justin B Rye:
>> Assuming I can get write access, how do I minimise the pain?
>> But while I know a few basic svn commands (which is more than I'll ever
>> understand of git), it's not clear to me whether doing (a), (b), (c),
>> and (d) as successive commits would let translators benefit from them
>> being separate.  
> The fuzzy strings will appear only after re-generating po & pot files.
> No need to do several commits. I think you can keep your original
> patches.

I don't have patches yet.  This conversation is about whether I should
start creating patches split by edit-type or by XML file.

>> Would I need to learn how to do fancy stuff like branches and merges?
> I don't think so.
> For orthographic changes, you could grep all the po-files and modify the
> original string, this would prevent the fuzzy to appear. Or manually
> unfuzzy some translations after re-generating. 
> But if you feel uncomfortable with this, don't do it : translators are
> used to this. It's just a matter of Ctrl-U / Ctrl-Down !

It sounds to me as if dividing my patches by type won't benefit
anybody unless I first turn my desktop into an unstable development
machine so that I can run chunks of the package's build process and
learn to fiddle with generated gettext files in the appropriate way.

If that's the case, I might as well fall back on the achievable option
of submitting patches split up by file.
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package

Reply to: