[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin v. L÷wis) 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.