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

Re: [LCFC] po://debian-history/fr.po

Hi David,

On 2012-04-20 19:21, David Prévot wrote:
Hash: SHA256

Hi Filipus,

Le 20/04/2012 17:55, Filipus Klutiero a écrit :

/usr/share/doc/debian-history/fr/ch-leaders.fr.html contains:

Stefano Zachhiroli a été élu en avril 2010 et est notre chef de projet
In "Zachhiroli", "chh" should read "c*c*h".
This problem does not affect the English version.
As already written in #668475: Filipus, please address similar issues
directly to the debian-l10n-french list so we can handle them properly
(package maintainers may not be in the best place to fix them), or at
least X-Debbugs-CC the list.

Since you failed to understand the previous sentence, let me translate
it to you…

It might help me understand English to make sure I read it, say by reaching me via the To field of English messages which address me ;-) I don't think intervention from translators is required in this specific case, but thanks, I will try to remember copying debian-l10n-french in future reports about French language issues. You can't expect me to do so though, my poor brain is aging very rapidly. Do we have some ticket requesting some automated solution for this, perhaps Bugzilla-like components?

Filipus, les problèmes de traduction française doivent être signalés
directement à la liste debian-l10n-french. C'est contre-productif
d'ouvrir un rapport de bogue pour des problèmes de traduction qui
peuvent être directement traités par les personnes concernées, c'est à
dire les traducteurs, et que les responsables de paquets ne peuvent
généralement pas corriger eux-mêmes. Par exemple dans ce cas précis,
Steve est en train de finaliser la mise à jour de cette traduction, si
cette simple typo avait été corrigée par le responsables du paquet sans
prévenir le traducteur, elle aurait été écrasée par la mise à jour

This shouldn't happen. If it would have, either it's because maintainers were supposed to tell translators, or there's something wrong with the workflow. An updated version of a file should only overwrite another version if the overwriting version is a descendant of the overwritten version, or if improvements in the overwritten version were merged in the overwriting version.

Reply to: