I just double checked: the pointer is: Localization AOO<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO>, which clearly stated (the very first lines of the document)
"This document is based on and extents Localization_for_developers<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers>. The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed technical analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document should be seen as a replacement of Localization_for_developers<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers> ." But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a link to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process. jan. On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am guilty. > > see below. > > > On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote: >> > Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document. >> > >> > The major changes are: >> > >> > - removed l10n web page tools >> > - no auto-commit in any tools >> > - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea, to >> > use/change existing tools) >> > - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams >> > >> > The document is available as pdf: >> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf >> > and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page: >> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal >> > Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page: >> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan >> > >> > this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use ooo-dev >> > for discussions. >> >> I noticed that somebody put an "outdated" template on >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I >> think is a little bit early. >> >> The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and necessary >> improvements. But the currently "Localization for developers" page >> describes how it works today. >> > The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong, but > the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works today. > > I hope that is ok ? > >> >> We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development yet >> but not available yet. >> > I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise. > > >> >> Juergen >> >> > >> > Andrea: >> > I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented >> now, >> > so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the >> pootle >> > people. >> > >> > >> > Have a nice evening. >> > jan I. >> > >> > >> >> >
