> No. One revision is not enough. We need the revision history and that
> should no be in the documentation. Your way is also possible, but to what
> revision?

How is the revision history is useful?? Why a simple revision
number is not enough? OK, lets draw a table:

+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| English mysql.xml history      | Some other lang. mysql.xml history    |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| 1.2                            |                                       |
| 1.3                            |                                       |
| 1.4                            | Started to translate this revision   *|
| 1.5                            |                                       |
| 1.6                            |                                       |
| 1.7                            |                                       |
| 1.8                            | Finished with translation of 1.4    **|
|                                |                                       |
.                                .                                       . 
.                                .                                       . 
. Some months passed             .                                       . 
.                                .                                       . 
| 14.2                           | Update needed                      ***|
|                                | Easily updated                        |
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

So see the points:

 * Here the translator need to "write down" somewhere that he/she
   started the translation with the 1.4 Revision of the en file.
   Now this can be accomplished by lookin inside the CVS dir, and
   try to find the file, and copy out the revision number. BUT:
   Jeroen added the $Revision tag, so there is no need to look into
   the CVS dir, as the Revision is in the file.

   At this stage the translator people copies the file to another
   place, or committing partial translations. If committing partial
   translations, he can mention in a comment in the Translators file,
   that he is working on it, but he can even add a comment to the
   top of the file, that he "reserved" the file.

 ** At this stage (or with the first commit if it happened in the
    previous stage) the translator can add a comment to the file,
    containing the Revision number of the en file named the same in
    the doctree.
 
 *** Some months passed, the file needs some updating, and the
     new (or the old) translator looks into the file, finds the exact
     en Revision, makes a diff with that en Revision, and the actual
     en Revision and gets the diff what needs to be updated/translated.

I think both the $Revision tag and the comment at the begining of
the file is useful, and helps much to save time. At least I try
to keep the hu tree with that structure, exept that all the "meta
information" about files are stored in the hu Translators file.

Goba

Reply via email to