Hi Philippe and Brian,
Its great to see the localization work come together, very exciting.
I want to make sure we step back and look at the larger context as we
plan next steps...
- We don't want to threaten the Preview schedule, getting this out the
door is critical.
- Preview is not a 1.0 release. Its a get something usable out the door
so we can learn for the 1.0 release. The point of Preview is to put it
out there and get feedback on things like the terminology and menus. We
didn't perfect menus, terminology, error messages, etc. because we'd
rather get feedback from users outside of our current bubble for the
next iteration.
- Brian has more bugs than most -- are you a critical path? We need your
concentration on those last tricky bugs.
- We will likely do a 0.7.1 release as a quick turn around.
- We are going to be doing a lot of iterating on 0.7.1 and subsequent
releases.
I agree that we want people to be able to localize the Preview release.
If something blocks that, we should fix it.
I do want to make sure we are being smart about next steps. Is any of
this more appropriate for a 0.7.1 release?
If you guys tell me this is doable and won't put Brian on the critical
path, I'm with you, but wanted to raise the issue.
Cheers,
Katie
Philippe Bossut wrote:
Hi,
Heikki Toivonen wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood, because this does not make sense to me:
So you are saying we will not change strings in Chandler code, but you
will manually change Chandler.pot, which should be used by translators
to create po files?
You misunderstood what Brian said. His point is : the strings in the
code (the untranslated ones that are used as msgid if you prefer) are
not good, the English is poor, the wording is inconsistent, etc... which
makes the work of translators hard. So we should make our best effort to
change them before we start localization for good. 2 points are making
that a tad tricky:
- We are in a "string freeze" period and we asked devs not to change
those strings (but that's a constraint we added on ourselves, not a law
of physics)
- We better have that done by one person so that consistency is indeed
achieved. Turns out that this is what Mimi's just done with her
Chandler-en.po
So the proposal is:
1- Mimi tweaks the Chandler-en.po may be once more (actually she logged
bug 9954 against herself to do just that). Note that Mimi prefers
working on the po rather than the Python and xrc because in the po you
have all the strings right here and there and you can ensure consistency
in a much easier way.
2- When done, Brian makes the manual changes of the strings in Python
and xrc files. Other devs please continue to respect the "string freeze"
or his and Mimi's work will be made that much harder.
3- When all the substitutions are done, we'll create a new Chandler.pot
(using the usual createpot tool) that we'll commit in the localizations
svn and we'll give the "go" to other localizers to start their work
Note that this operation will likely make the use of a Chandler-en.po
much less critical, except for those stray strings that we may want to
tweak once more post point 3.
Does it make more sense?
Brian, Mimi, please chime in if I miss something.
Cheers,
- Philippe
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
