[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin v. Löwis) writes:
> Why do you think the scheme is narrow-minded?
Because "1.9-beta3" seems to be a problem.
> VERSION = ('[.0-9]+-?b[0-9]+'
> '|[.0-9]+-?dev[0-9]+'
> '|[.0-9]+-?pre[0-9]+'
> '|[.0-9]+-?rel[0-9]+'
> '|[.0-9]+[a-z]?'
> '|[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9]-[0-9][0-9]')
But that's narrow. Why support 1.9-b3, but not 1.9-beta3 or
1.9-alpha3, or 1.9-rc10? Those and similar version schemes are in
wide use.
>> That's really bad. But what's even worse is that something or
>> someone silently changed "beta3" to "b3" in the POT, and then failed
>> to perform the same change for my translation, which caused it to
>> get dropped without notice.
>
> Nothing should get dropped without a notice. [...]
I now understand that this could have been an exception due to the
outage. But that's how it happened. I sent the translation -- twice
-- and it got dropped. Karl told me to resend the translation with a
"1.9-b3" version (which I'd never heard of before), so I naturally
assumed that the submission had been dropped because of version.
> Now, since UMontreal has changed the translation@ alias, it might be
> that some messages were lost during the outage; this is unfortunate,
> but difficult to correct, as we cannot find out which messages might
> have lost. Fortunately, most translators know to get a message back
> from the robot for all submissions, so if they don't get one, they
> resend.
Note that I did resend, but to no avail. My first attempt contained a
MIME attachment, which I then found out the robot didn't understand.
My second attempt was from po-mode, which should have produced a valid
message, except for the version.
