Re: [Question] generated source files with languages (l10n process) overwriting original files.
Ok, I just saw 2 files on my ubuntu, that was overwritten, so I thought it was general, but that may have other reasonsI will do some more research. Jan. Ps. No problem with the mail, better late than never :-) On 22 November 2012 15:38, Juergen Schmidt wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 14. November 2012 um 21:47 schrieb jan iversen: > > While programming the l10n translation, I have stumbled across something > > which I do not know is a real or theoretical problem. I need an opinion > > from people with more experience. > > > > Description of the current situation: > > When you run configure with e.g. "--with-lang=da", all languages Are > > inserted in the source files alongside with the original en-US text. This > > works without problems > > > > BUT, if the developer forget to do a checkout (thereby removing the extra > > languages) but does a commit, then SVN will have all languages in the > file. > > After the commit a snapshot (or development) build will contain all > > languauges for that file. Note: If a translation changes, it will be > > replaced in the file with the next build, so it will work. However: > > - developer/snapshot contains an "unwanted" language part > > - it is not clean that all language are in this file, as well as in the > sdf > > file (original), and can lead to confusion, where what is maintained. > > > > What I easily could do, was NOT to overwrite the file, but place a new > file > > (same content but with all languages added) in the /misc > > directory, therefore the original would be left untouched. This requires > of > > course some makefile changes (the new l10n process requires anyhow > > changes), which I will do (in a sub-branch) when the system is ready. > > > > Question: > > > > Is it a problem that the original is overwritten, and it would be better > > to write a new file (in misc) ? > > > > or > > > > Am I thinking about a theoretical problem, that is no real world problem > ? > > > > First of all sorry for the late response, I am still haven't read all > mails after my vacation. > I am not sure if I understand you correct but normally no originals are > overwritten during the build. > Files get merged in the local output directory and later used from there. > > Juergen > > > > Just to be sure, the effort of doing one or the other are the same, so > that > > is not an argument (at least for me), we should do what is correct. > > > > Jan I. > >
Re: [Question] generated source files with languages (l10n process) overwriting original files.
Am Mittwoch, 14. November 2012 um 21:47 schrieb jan iversen: > While programming the l10n translation, I have stumbled across something > which I do not know is a real or theoretical problem. I need an opinion > from people with more experience. > > Description of the current situation: > When you run configure with e.g. "--with-lang=da", all languages Are > inserted in the source files alongside with the original en-US text. This > works without problems > > BUT, if the developer forget to do a checkout (thereby removing the extra > languages) but does a commit, then SVN will have all languages in the file. > After the commit a snapshot (or development) build will contain all > languauges for that file. Note: If a translation changes, it will be > replaced in the file with the next build, so it will work. However: > - developer/snapshot contains an "unwanted" language part > - it is not clean that all language are in this file, as well as in the sdf > file (original), and can lead to confusion, where what is maintained. > > What I easily could do, was NOT to overwrite the file, but place a new file > (same content but with all languages added) in the /misc > directory, therefore the original would be left untouched. This requires of > course some makefile changes (the new l10n process requires anyhow > changes), which I will do (in a sub-branch) when the system is ready. > > Question: > > Is it a problem that the original is overwritten, and it would be better > to write a new file (in misc) ? > > or > > Am I thinking about a theoretical problem, that is no real world problem ? > First of all sorry for the late response, I am still haven't read all mails after my vacation. I am not sure if I understand you correct but normally no originals are overwritten during the build. Files get merged in the local output directory and later used from there. Juergen > > Just to be sure, the effort of doing one or the other are the same, so that > is not an argument (at least for me), we should do what is correct. > > Jan I.
[Question] generated source files with languages (l10n process) overwriting original files.
While programming the l10n translation, I have stumbled across something which I do not know is a real or theoretical problem. I need an opinion from people with more experience. Description of the current situation: When you run configure with e.g. "--with-lang=da", all languages Are inserted in the source files alongside with the original en-US text. This works without problems BUT, if the developer forget to do a checkout (thereby removing the extra languages) but does a commit, then SVN will have all languages in the file. After the commit a snapshot (or development) build will contain all languauges for that file. Note: If a translation changes, it will be replaced in the file with the next build, so it will work. However: - developer/snapshot contains an "unwanted" language part - it is not clean that all language are in this file, as well as in the sdf file (original), and can lead to confusion, where what is maintained. What I easily could do, was NOT to overwrite the file, but place a new file (same content but with all languages added) in the /misc directory, therefore the original would be left untouched. This requires of course some makefile changes (the new l10n process requires anyhow changes), which I will do (in a sub-branch) when the system is ready. Question: Is it a problem that the original is overwritten, and it would be better to write a new file (in misc) ? or Am I thinking about a theoretical problem, that is no real world problem ? Just to be sure, the effort of doing one or the other are the same, so that is not an argument (at least for me), we should do what is correct. Jan I.
