I need your oppinion about the way how commits will work in the web interface to translate the manual.
There was an idea to solve the problem of being always changing CVS dir with the user's information.
The solution would be to have just a CVS account (that hot solution) and all commits would be done by the admin of the project. I'll explain: A translator would translate a file. Then, that file would be marked as 'to-review'. Then, the admin would read the file, and make any changes (if necessary), and the file would be marked as 'to-commit'. At the end of day (throught a cron job) an update script would run and checkout any changes to files and would commit/add the new translations. With this solution, we would have better quality translations and we would have just one CVS account for each project.
Any comments?
I think that this system should use Joe's account (imaginary), if he has one, but if he has no cvs account, then it should be committed with a default translation group account. It is important to keep as much information in the CVS logs as possible, so cvs commits should reflect the user who changed the file.
This is important, because usual CVS users will still do translations. Also it is important for this system to handle colissions. It is not at all sure that the cronjob will be able to commit the changes, if one CVS user changes the file between the moment someone edits it in the online app, and the cron runs. Therefore I would vote for immediate commits. Also if this app would use cron, then it should handle the problem of multiple change requests regarding the same file in the scope of the application itself. Imagine that it commits the first change, then it will not be possible to committ the second change, because it does not contain the previous change (it is not updated). So it seems to me that everything stands behind immediate commits.
Goba