Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
>> At the end of every po file : >> #. Put one translator per line, in the form of NAME , YEAR1, >> YEAR2 #: src/concepts/basic-setup.xml:0(None) >> msgid "translator-credits" >> msgstr "" >> "Daniel Egger\n" >> "Roman Joost\n" >> "Axel Wernicke\n" >> "Ulf-D. Ehlert" > > Hmm, is this a really useful information? Not "useful", but responsible. > So which "events" are worth to be noted down, and which are not? > Let's have a look at some sample section history entries: > > 2007-06-16 Added Spanish translation by AntI > 2006-01-18 en;fr reviewed by j.h > 2005/11/11 split of from layer-mask.xml by axel.wernicke > 2008-12-29 j.h: rev. v2.6 > 2007-10-17 ude: moved here from menus/layer-white-balance.xml > 2006-08-08: created by scb; example by j.h > 2005-12-07 replaced by by lexa > 2008-01-31 j.h: created > 2008-12-29 j.h: link to File-references to be fixed > 2007-10-17 j.h: updated to v2.4 (comment) > 2006-09-19 lexa: minor change (link enabled) > 2006-07-03 changed the note en;fr by j.h > 2006-06-17 added a para en;fr for default image size by j.h > 2007-05-09 ude: removed filters-artistic-cubism.png > 2007-05-28 Fixed Auto Follow Active Image by j.h > 2007-04-21 lexa: fixed bug #420007 > 2010-04-18 ude: changed help-id: old -> new > 2007-09-05 ude: renamed to "Lens Flare" > We should keep information for creation, modifications in description, update to new release (because when checking xml files for a new release, we must see immediately whether a file has been updated without reading it). So, in your list, we should keep: > 2007-04-21 lexa: fixed bug #420007 > 2007-05-28 Fixed Auto Follow Active Image by j.h > 2006-06-17 added a para en;fr for default image size by j.h > 2006-07-03 changed the note by j.h > 2008-01-31 j.h: created > 2008-12-29 j.h: link to File-references to be fixed > 2007-10-17 j.h: updated to v2.4 (comment) > 2006-08-08: created by scb; example by j.h > 2008-12-29 j.h: rev. v2.6 (Sorry, I am mentioned all along because I used "section history" already in that way.). So, we have a date and we can refer to the log for details easily. > HTML output cat be suppressed with a simple template: > > > If is not used for html, you will have useless tags in xml files. What is better, (or worse), "section history" or ? Bye, Julien ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
jhardlin (Tuesday, 08. June 2010)
> At the end of every po file :
> #. Put one translator per line, in the form of NAME , YEAR1,
> YEAR2 #: src/concepts/basic-setup.xml:0(None)
> msgid "translator-credits"
> msgstr ""
> "Daniel Egger\n"
> "Roman Joost\n"
> "Axel Wernicke\n"
> "Ulf-D. Ehlert"
Hmm, is this a really useful information?
> > Adding s again and using them according to the
> > examples in "DocBook: The Definitive Guide" may be better than
> > using our selfmade "section history" comments (we should
> > suppress the output to HTML, IMHO). But isn't one
> > for every XML file an overkill?
>
> I agree with you. As they are now, "section history" are outdated.
> But I still think that they are interesting. We must only use them
> for creation and new features, not for typo corrections, changes
> in xml structure...(translation is no longer topical).
So which "events" are worth to be noted down, and which are not?
Let's have a look at some sample section history entries:
2007-06-16 Added Spanish translation by AntI
2006-01-18 en;fr reviewed by j.h
2005/11/11 split of from layer-mask.xml by axel.wernicke
2008-12-29 j.h: rev. v2.6
2007-10-17 ude: moved here from menus/layer-white-balance.xml
2006-08-08: created by scb; example by j.h
2005-12-07 replaced by by lexa
2008-01-31 j.h: created
2008-12-29 j.h: link to File-references to be fixed
2007-10-17 j.h: updated to v2.4 (comment)
2006-09-19 lexa: minor change (link enabled)
2006-07-03 changed the note en;fr by j.h
2006-06-17 added a para en;fr for default image size by j.h
2007-05-09 ude: removed filters-artistic-cubism.png
2007-05-28 Fixed Auto Follow Active Image by j.h
2007-04-21 lexa: fixed bug #420007
2010-04-18 ude: changed help-id: old -> new
2007-09-05 ude: renamed to "Lens Flare"
> is not convenient:
> - it will give a long and tedious list in the xml file
Depends on what we add to the history.
> - it will appear in html and that is not useful
HTML output cat be suppressed with a simple template:
Bye,
Ulf
PS: How to get a sample section history: define a shell function, e.g.
get-random-history() {
test "$N" -gt 0 2>/dev/null ||
N=`find src/ -type f -name '*.xml' | wc -l`
n=`expr $RANDOM \% $N + 1`
f=`find src/ -type f -name '*.xml' | sed -e "$n"'!d'`
echo $f
sed -e '/[Ss]ection [Hh]istory/,/-->/!d' $f
}
... and type "get-random-history".
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Gimp-docs mailing list
Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
> What do mean with "signed"? The header? > At the end of every po file : #. Put one translator per line, in the form of NAME , YEAR1, YEAR2 #: src/concepts/basic-setup.xml:0(None) msgid "translator-credits" msgstr "" "Daniel Egger\n" "Roman Joost\n" "Axel Wernicke\n" "Ulf-D. Ehlert" Adding s again and using them according to the examples in > "DocBook: The Definitive Guide" may be better than using our selfmade > "section history" comments (we should suppress the output to HTML, > IMHO). But isn't one for every XML file an overkill? > I agree with you. As they are now, "section history" are outdated. But I still think that they are interesting. We must only use them for creation and new features, not for typo corrections, changes in xml structure...(translation is no longer topical). is not convenient: - it will give a long and tedious list in the xml file - it will appear in html and that is not useful Unless there is another way to make xml files NOT anonymous, I think that our short and overall "section history" comments are the simplest way. Julien ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
> > What do mean with "signed"? The header? > At the end of every po file : #. Put one translator per line, in the form of NAME , YEAR1, YEAR2 #: src/concepts/basic-setup.xml:0(None) msgid "translator-credits" msgstr "" "Daniel Egger\n" "Roman Joost\n" "Axel Wernicke\n" "Ulf-D. Ehlert" > Adding s again and using them according to the examples in > "DocBook: The Definitive Guide" may be better than using our selfmade > "section history" comments (we should suppress the output to HTML, > IMHO). But isn't one for every XML file an overkill? > I agree with you. As they are now, "section history" are outdated. But I still think that they are interesting. We must only use them for creation and new features, not for typo corrections, changes in xml structure...(translation is no longer topical). is not convenient: - it will give a long and tedious list in the xml file - it will appear in html and that is not useful Unless there is another way to make xml files NOT anonymous, I think that our short and overall "section history" comments are the simplest way. Julien ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
jhardlin (Friday, 04. June 2010) > In git log, file history is scattered and difficult to find. Ok, that's true. But I use 'git log' only if I'm really interested in some special information (e.g.: "Which idiot wrote this nonsense? Oh god, it was me again..."). > Every po file is signed. Why not xml? What do mean with "signed"? The header? > History tag exists in the xml language. Why not use it? If I remember correctly we used to (mis)use elements in the multi-language XML files, but in a rather strange and useless way. Adding s again and using them according to the examples in "DocBook: The Definitive Guide" may be better than using our selfmade "section history" comments (we should suppress the output to HTML, IMHO). But isn't one for every XML file an overkill? > Sure, history is not necessary to work on a xml file. More interesting IMHO: does it *help* you if you work on an XML file? > [...] I am not young, Oh, so we are two! :-) > and I find pleasant to have all the history of the file summarized > at the beginning without needing to browse all the log over. Try this shell command: for d in appendix concepts dialogs filters glossary introduction \ menus toolbox tutorial using do find src/$d -type f -name '*.xml' | head -n 20 | tail -n 3 done | xargs sed -e '/[Ss]ection [Hh]istory/,/-->/!d' This displays some more or less randomly picked section history comments, and IMHO most of them are totally useless. I still think we should remove them or find an alternative way to provide some meta information. Bye, Ulf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
>>> So git log are for what? Please avoid redundant data. >> >> Rather complicated. When working on xml files, better to have this >> information at once. > > Which information do you really need? Most info (including creation > date or new features) you can get by "git log" - if we provide good > commit messages - or "git blame". > And, of course, you can still add comments to the XML source. In git log, file history is scattered and difficult to find. Every po file is signed. Why not xml? History tag exists in the xml language. Why not use it? Sure, history is not necessary to work on a xml file. Young people generally are not interested in history : I am not young, and I find pleasant to have all the history of the file summarized at the beginning without needing to browse all the log over. Julien ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
jhardlin (Thursday, 03. June 2010) > > So git log are for what? Please avoid redundant data. > > Rather complicated. When working on xml files, better to have this > information at once. Which information do you really need? Most info (including creation date or new features) you can get by "git log" - if we provide good commit messages - or "git blame". And, of course, you can still add comments to the XML source. Are there no alternatives? Ulf signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
>> I think the history must be reserved for creation and adding new features. >> So, we can delete all what is about translation or fixing typos. >> > So git log are for what? Please avoid redundant data. > Rather complicated. When working on xml files, better to have this information at once. ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:03:32PM +0200, jhardlin wrote: > > > our XML files still contain section history comments like > > > > > > > > IMO these comments are obsolete and useless, and we could remove them > > (whenever we edit XML files). > > Anonymous xml files is not a good idea > > I think the history must be reserved for creation and adding new features. > So, we can delete all what is about translation or fixing typos. > So git log are for what? Please avoid redundant data. -- Marco Ciampa ++ | Linux User #78271 | | FSFE fellow #364 | ++ ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
> our XML files still contain section history comments like > > > > IMO these comments are obsolete and useless, and we could remove them > (whenever we edit XML files). Anonymous xml files is not a good idea I think the history must be reserved for creation and adding new features. So, we can delete all what is about translation or fixing typos. Julien ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
Marco Ciampa skreiv: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Ulf-D. Ehlert wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> our XML files still contain section history comments like >> >> >> >> IMO these comments are obsolete and useless, and we could remove them >> (whenever we edit XML files). >> >> What do you think? >> >> Ulf >> > > Please do! > > Many thanks Ulf! > Yes, do it. No use of these comments anymore. Kolbjoern ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
Re: [Gimp-docs] section history
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:23:03PM +0200, Ulf-D. Ehlert wrote: > Hi, > > our XML files still contain section history comments like > > > > IMO these comments are obsolete and useless, and we could remove them > (whenever we edit XML files). > > What do you think? > > Ulf Please do! Many thanks Ulf! -- Marco Ciampa ++ | Linux User #78271 | | FSFE fellow #364 | ++ ___ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
