On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote: > On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >> >>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> >>>> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap, >>>> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it doesn't >>>> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should re-evaluate >>>> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more relevant. >>>> >>> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical >>> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as >>> well. >>> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious >>> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0 >>> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now. >>> >> >> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion was >> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers >> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be rejected >> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community member, to >> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody who is >> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review makes sense >> in my opinion. >> >> >> we have volunteers who are ready to >>>> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only offers >>>> 3.4.1. See >>>> http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for >>>> more. >>>> >>> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this? Nobody >>> should plan with other peoples time and willingness >>> >> >> One issue: >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910> >> >> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot of >> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in attracting >> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work whether >> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice opportunity >> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had great >> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language, Summer is >> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time, telling >> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release next month >> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who actually >> did this Pootle administration work. > > > I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it seems > we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc): > - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on 4.0 ?
if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1 I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming scheme, why? old aoo40 new a00401 This makes it not easier to get an overview > - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ? I would only add languages where we have an active translating community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and add them on demand or we create a further project where we add all inactive languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the latest templates > - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ? We should not merge sdf files back. We work with po files and use Pootle to manage them and get an overview where we are. Offline translation will be merged on Pootle first. And with your new translation tools sdf files become obsolete completely. > > @jsc, I have trunk on my linux, so I suggest the following procedure > (provided you agree): > > 1) I convert all sdf files to po files (to be sure lets agree offlist on > the actual cmds and parm to use) I am fine with this, ping me for details But we should merge the po files with the latest new template files for AOO 4.0 to keep everything in sync. I don't know why but I noticed sometimes some problems here and I have to do it twice to get the same and correct word count. By the way the Danish pootle-terminology.po file confused me every time and needs special handling when merged etc. > 2) upload the PO files to a temp dir on translate-vm2.a.o > 3) sync db with po dir on translate-vm2.a.o > 4) create project 4.01 with content of 4.0 > 5) compare if Pootle files contain newer info then sdf-PO files (this will > be the difficult part) mmh, I am not sure if I understand what you want to do here. Pootle is our source and we convert old sdf files to po, merge with the latest templates and update Pootle. Languages that are on the 4.0 project already have to be not merged. Pootle is the source here. > 6) create new languages > 7) overwrite PO-dir with sdf-PO use the updated and merged po files, merged against the latest template files > 8) sync PO dir with pootle (only for lang. with differences) > > If we agree, I can do it very fast (within a day). > I would as mentioned earlier only support langs where we see an active community. Move all other langs in a separate project to reduce the work long term. And we should remove them from the source temporary as long as they are not supported. Juergen > rgds > jan I. > > > >> Regards, >> Andrea. >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
