Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:55:48AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> On 2008-11-22 11:04, Jens Seidel wrote:
> > Right. Nevertheless one checks normally only the trunk version out. I think
> > it would be a good idea to switch to trunk as soon as working on a new
> > release starts. This simplifies contribution a lot.
>
> Yes, I agree. The branch was meant temporarily.
The current stable version can later be moved to a branch to save it's state.
> > * Currently the suffix .dbk is used for DocBook/XML files. Is this a usual
> > one? Other documents I know use .xml which I prefer. (That's only a minor
> > issue but once the code is moved to trunk one can fix this as well.)
>
> I very strongly prefer .dbk over .xml. XML is very generic
> (everything is XML nowadays, right? gnumeric, dia, abiword, ...)
OK.
> > * Currently multiple PO files are used. One for each English document.
s/document/file/
> > I think a single PO file is much preffered.
>
> OK, I have to check, how to handle this. Currently, it makes the
> build process a little bit easier (and more aligned with the
> languages, where po is not used on request of the translators)
Trust me that a single PO file for each language is not more difficult.
The opposite is true: Since two different files could share strings they
need currently to be translated multiple times.
> and it allows translators to easily share their work without
> having to merge later.
Partly. How to share 5 files with 10 translators :-?
> But we can change this, if you prefer.
If other people do not agree there is no need to change it. But dealing with
a single file is just easier.
> > * In my older build I still found the strange filename en/release-notes..pdf.
> > Nobody noticed it yet? This will clearly make trouble once we link to this
> > file from the website. Maybe it is accessible via language code "" or ".".
>
> This happens, if the "architecture" variable is not set during
> the make run. I will change the Makefile, that this does not
> happen anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience.
The old Makefile displayed an error in this case ...
Jens
Reply to: