On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:50:06PM +0900, Osamu Aoki 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.
Now that would be a real improvement! It would make life much easier if
the scripts would not just show a bland "missing update from 1.34 to 1.36",
but instead instantly state the time difference and indicate if there are
any custom tags such as, oh, "complete-rewrite-3" or "english-wording-67".
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
