On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:27:48PM +0000, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 13/11/2015 16:58, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 07:12:52PM +0100, Georg Baum wrote: > >>Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >> > >>>Le 11/11/15 22:39, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >>>>>Branch has less strings than master. (6609 vs. 6817). And not all > >>>>>strings from branch are common with master. > >>>> > >>>>I see. So there is no rule that I can use to do what I want then. I > >>>>guess I will just copy over the po files from branch that have not been > >>>>updated on master then. I'm not sure what else I could do. > >>> > >>>You could try a tool like msgcat to merge the two files. > >> > >>IMHO there is no alternative to merging, if you don't want to throw away > >>translations, and don't want to invest too much time. We should have a > >>helper script in develoment/tools for merging. > > > >This would be nice. If the only way to do things is with manual merging, > >I'm happy to spend the time to learn how to do that. But if you think it > >is possible to come up with a script that either does the merging > >automatically or at least facilitates the merging, then that would be > >really nice. > > > > It's too bad that it makes more work for you and future release managers. > From what I understand, the default is that po files are committed in > stable. Since people who care about having up-to-date po in master seems to > be LyX developers, could you not ask them to make it easy for you? Either by > making sure that you can rely on the master po file, or by giving you a hand > before release. Of course, only if an automated script would produce sub-par > results.
Good ideas. Let's get advice from people who know a lot about po files and what we've done in the past. If it's just something where I need to spend a fixed cost of time to get familiar with things, I have no problem with that. But as you say, it seems there might be a benefit to future release managers as well. Scott
