On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote: > > On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > > I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db > > easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below. > > > > > >> > >> > >>> - 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 > >> > > > > so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation > > factor to see that part of the language is already translated. > > > > also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to > > convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information. > > as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project but > away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of > people who actually do the work is important as well ;-) > > > > > > >> > >>> - 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. > >> > > we need to, first of all we have sdf files that have not been converted > to > > po, second we have 3.4.1 po files that need to be updated from sdf to 4.0 > > level. > > sure we have to do it ones but I talked more about the handling after > this initial step > > > > >> > >> And with your new translation tools sdf files become obsolete > completely. > >> > > > > yes, but thats just so much more reason to get all sdf files synchronized > > now. > > I think I said this already. We have to convert them all in po, merge > against the latest templates from 4.0 and safe them in a secure > place/project and use new languages on demand > No problem, I would have preferred another way, but this is less work now. I will simply copy aoo40 to aoo4.0.1, no merge or anything else. I am currently running refresh_stat, and looking at how long it takes, it must have been quite a while since it last ran. After that comes sync_stores in aoo400. then copy aoo400 dir to aoo4.0.1 and update_stores. that runs in a window on my pc, so it is not really extra work. Hope that also satisfies the requests from andrea. rgds jan I. > > Juergen > > > > > > > >> > >>> > >>> @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 > >> > > will do. > > > > > >> > >> 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. > >> > > hmmm dont understand why, its a normal po file, just created by pootle. > > When you upload to the pootle db it is special handled. > > > > This is actually something all languages should have. > > > > > >> > >> > >>> 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. > >> > > > > as a side remark, svn is our source not pootle. Pootle is just our work > > area. > > > > I assume step 2,3,4) are simple an clear. so now I have PO files from > > Pootle and PO files from sdf. We have languages (I saw that in my last > > test), where the following is true: > > - sdf generated PO files contains translated entries not in Pootle db > > - Pootle db contain translated entries not in the sdf file > > > > hence the merge procedure. > > > > rgds > > jan I. > > > > > > > >> > >>> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
