On 10/6/07, Nuno Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hannes Magnusson escreveu: > > > >> Hello all > > > >> > > > >> Was there any specific reason why this "EN-Revision" comment magic > > > >> was > > > >> chosen over the Docbook revision attribute? > > > > > > If there's a better way then let's do it... please propose exactly > > > how it'd work and what it would look like. We'd also need to adjust > > > all the translation scripts within docweb (and scripts/) before/while > > > implementing. > > > > (See attached patched for function.strpos on how exactly it will look > > in the XML) > > > > The rules would be the same as CVS Revision, just manually bumped. > > I don't like this idea because the revision doesn't get bumped > automatically. I think there'll be more problems that the little efforth of > the translators to bump a no-op revision.
Is your time more worth than the time of 29 translators combined? Selfish prick! :) Bumping it automatically is the problem, not the solution. We have almost 30 translations, and only 1 up2date. Seriously, the Japanese translation is the only translation with over 50% content up to date. Currently we have no way of knowing if the French translation is missing critical fixes or if it simply needs to bump its revision after the bunch of English-only-fixes to the docs the past months. Given the fact phpdoc has been pretty much sleeping for the past few months I have serious doubts that the French translation really is that outdated. If we bumped the (major&minor) revision manually we could (more) accurately determine if the translation was really out of date and warn the end-user if it really is. > Please remember that not everybody that contributes documentation belongs to > the phpdoc team and thus isn't aware of our latest practices. So, automatic > things are the best things (tm). Whoever commits the patch is responsible for it and should make sure its "phpdocified" (proper ws, markup inline with the current recommendations, entity usage...). -Hannes
