cc'ing gnome-i18n to get feedback on what translators prefer. Note: we need a quick decision (in the next few hours)
I put some comments below: Le mercredi 22 octobre 2008, à 11:28 +0200, Christian Persch a écrit : > Hi; > > Le Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:29:22 -0400, > "Matthias Clasen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > Due to an incomplete regression fix from > > > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548600 > > > > the gconf schema shipped in gnome-terminal 2.24.1 is invalid. See e.g. > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467980 > > I'm sorry about this. I wanted to be 'clever' and put in the regression > fix without having to do an UI and string freeze break, but that > evidently backfired :-( > > > I've fixed this in Fedora by pulling in the <locale> elements from the > > trunk schema, > > which brings in a lot of strings. But those strings were present in > > 2.22, and building > > the patched package reveals that a lot of the translations are still > > present in the 2.24.1 > > po files. > > > > I'd like to propose that we do the same thing (pulling in the missing > > <locale> elements > > from trunk) for 2.24.1. The possible translation regressions would > > only ever be visible in > > gconf-editor anyway. > > Alternatively, I could take the generated schemas file from a 2.22 > build and put them into an extra schemas file, so there > won't be any extra strings to translate. That would get only those > translations present in 2.22 the translated strings, but since they're > gconf only and rather dull, it shouldn't be too bad. This avoids the > string freeze break. Isn't this way a bit risky? > I can do a 2.24.1.1 release asap if you tell me which one you prefer. I'll wait for the tarball for the GNOME release. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
