On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 03:09, Philip Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10 Nov 2008, at 12:32, Hannes Magnusson wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 00:05, Christian Weiske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> So what do people think now, one year after the last discussion? >> >> I still think manual bumping is the way-to-go, but I can live with >> automaticbumping if someone writes such a svn hook. > > If the committer does nothing with a revision tag, then it should be assumed > that the commit is translation worthy. However, if the committer feels it > should not be translated (like simply typo, WS, ...), then said committer > should be able to easily say so thus not outdate any translations with the > commit. In other words, I prefer we lean towards the side of caution here by > not requiring a manual bump.
I guess. "Tagging" commit messages with "[NOBUMP]" (i.e. "[NOBUMP] Fixed typo, no need to translate") when the revision shouldn't increased.. The problem there is however people will actually have to remember to use that "tag".. > How? I'm not sure. But once we all agree on a general route then I'm > guessing we could figure out how to implement. Also, I'm guessing the move > to SVN will open up a few more options here too. But we have to be ready before the SVN move as the move will destroy our current revision checks. It cannot work and will get fucked right after the first commit to SVN unless we have the hooks ready. -Hannes
