> I see a picture forming here. I think I remember at least Jeroen, Derick
> and Damien strongly supporting Gobas idea. And all these translations are
> maintained by a very small team, in Damiens case really just one.
Interesting thing :)
> So it seems that what works for and helps one translation team may be
> completely useless for another. Although I think this could apply also to
> different persons within a team.
>
> I know that Egon won't change his mind, because he finds revision numbers
> and comments totally useless.
I tried to find the letters in the archives Egon posted very long
time ago, suggesting the de translators to put revision numbers
with the status messages in de/Translators files, but can't find it :((.
It can prove, that Egon is not against revision numbers, just maybe
he can't be comfortable with this proposed system currently :)
> - Are these different ways of working mutually exclusive? At least they
> shouldn't be. That revcheck script could even be used to update the
> existing entries and create new ones in Translators file based on the
> information found in comments (unless it already does it...).
As I wrote down in my last long letter (titled:
"Re: [PHP-DOC] Revision longer example"), we can
think of the Revision comments as a splitup of
translators and the script generated revheck.html
as a HTML version of Translators with much extra
stuff in it.
So this is just a renewal of the current system we
have with some extra convinient features added.
As I heard, we can make the revcheck.php script
run on every commit, so the table can be autogenerated
on every commit, and there would be no need to run
it manually in most of the cases.
Goba
