Just for the record, I have no recollection of agreeing with anybody on
anything with respect to this. As far as I can tell what you guys are
looking for is a faster and more organized status.php mechanism. The
source code for status.php is here:
http://cvs.php.net/~rasmus/status.phps
just in case it gives someone any ideas. Basically it picks out the
revision times of every file from CVS and compares it to the revision time
of the English version of the same file. It does this because there
aren't compatible revision numbers to compare. If a reliable set of
revision numbers could be introduced it would speed this up quite a bit.
I don't really see how it could be more accurate, but I also haven't paid
very close attention to this thread.
-Rasmus
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Hojtsy Gabor wrote:
> Extract from Egon:
>
> > Rasmus wrote the status.php script
> > at the same time I have introduced the revison numbers in the
> > de/Translators file. Rasmus agreed with me that the revision numbers
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > are better, than to compare revision numbers and revision times.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> So Egon thinks comparing revision numbers are better then comparing
> revision times. What the revcheck.php does, is to automatically
> compare the revision numbers. So it is better than the status.php
> script.
>
> Other extracts from Egon:
>
> > [...] I think revision numbers and comments are not sufficient.
> > [...] I say it again, revision numbers and comments are useless
> > for every translation.
>
> Erm, I am confused. You say the revision numbers are useless for
> all the translations. Then you say they are better then revision
> times... You need to decide.
>
> > You cannot have any control over the content changes in two
> > different languages.
>
> You can. The english CVS $Revision tags are modified automatically.
> The EN-Revision comments are modified by the translator when the
> file is synced with an english xml file.
>
> > You got me completely wrong.
>
> You said the opposite in some sentences than in the others.
> It is hard to understand you in this case.
>
> > The right thing we can do, is to look up the textual
> > changes back to that revision number in de/Translators. If the
> > translation is many revisions behind the English files, we can make
> > a diff with the actual revision and the old revision.
>
> By clicking any the link in the generated revcheck.html
> file, you see that diff you are talking about. Clicking
> a link is much easier, than looking up the revision number
> in de/Translators, then find a diff tool and manually give
> it the parameters.
>
> > Typos and whitespace are indeed harmless and the revision number in
> > the CVS system is updated automatically.
>
> In the english revision. And it is right. In this line:
>
> <!-- EN-Revision: 1.1 Maintainer: mk Status: ready -->
>
> is not changed by the CVS commit. This is a regular XML comment.
> It is updated manually when you update a file.
>
> > So I don´t see your point to write revision numbers in every
> > XML file.
>
> This way the files themselfs contain their English revision
> pair. The Translators table can be generated from these
> comments, as the comments are just the same, __you__ added
> today in de/Translators:
>
> -ingress_ii.xml Cornelia Boenigk fertig
> +ingres_ii.xml Cornelia Boenigk fertig (bis V. 1.10)
>
> The revision comment for this ingres_ii.xml file is:
>
> <!-- EN-Revision: 1.10 Maintainer: conni Status: ready -->
>
> Again, please note that this is nothing more, you actaually
> added today to de/Translators. It is just another place for
> this information.
>
> This way the information is distributed, so all files "know"
> their own English pair, but the Translators table can also
> be generated [with many plus features], so we get much more,
> than using only the Translators file.
>
> Again, please note, that we do not store more information than
> you store in de/Translators. We would update our Revision comments
> the same time, you would update Translators, they are not updated
> automatically.
>
> ********************************************************************
> This is just another place for the same thing you use now!
> ********************************************************************
>
> Please think about this a bit.
>
> Goba
>
