On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:14 PM, T J <[email protected]> wrote: > I translate for both AOO and LO. So I need to search a lot to work on the > same string. I'm trying to place accelerators consistently for identical > strings. And it would be easier if I don't have to scan over irrelevant > strings. I agree that both systems don't handle it well. By the way, what's > a JIRA? >
Is apache's Issue tracker for infrastructure things, like services and web applications. > > > Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 08:48:37 +0100 > > Subject: Re: Pootle search AOO's vs LO's > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > > > On 22 January 2014 07:13, T J <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It seems to me that LibreOffice's Pootle server is a bit more > inteligent > > > than AOO's Pootle. For example, when you seach all for "Delete > C~ells..." > > > in LO's Pootle, you get 3 results in 1 page. With AOO's Pootle, you > get 443 > > > results. There're lots of Delete and other irrelevant words. Looks like > > > AOO's Pootle has troubles with accelerators. > > > > > > > > > I dont see the big difference (except in numbers), search on c~ells, and > > you get results like > > C~ollect > > C~enter > > .... > > > > So I would say both systems dont handle it well. > > > > The difference is because LO pootle is still 2.5.0 while we have upgrade > to > > 2.5.1, which gives a number of new features. > > > > If you feel its a real error, then please create a JIRA, since the pootle > > server is a shared Apache service. > > > > rgds > > jan I. > > -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor http://www.openoffice.org 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
