On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 01:16:34PM +0100, Peter Krefting wrote:
> The problem is handling the translation revision tracking, as Git does
> not have any numerical revision numbers. It can of course be solved,
> but it might be a bit more inconvenient for translators since it most
> likely will need to work with the big SHA-1 hashes.
This is a show-stopper, really... We can get people to sacrifice a few more
hundreds of gigabytes of disk for translation purposes, but we can't
sacrifice the basic userfriendliness of the workflow - disk space is much
cheaper than human time. We already have various hurdles people need to
jump, introducing more for the sake of a bunch of advanced features that
will be seldom used (or at least I haven't seen suggestions to the
contrary...?) doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea.
Now, forcing people to compare a bunch of of hashes just to be able to keep
up, is a net loss. But if that change is coupled with the introduction of
tools that automate the process of keeping up in a user-friendly way... :)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
