On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 02:22:20PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > 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... :)
You mean things like tagging each "master" commits automatically with hook script with something like: auto-YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS.xxxx Then translator can embed this into translation just as CVS version thingy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
