Just to keep you all informed, that project plan has been updated and
extended according to the latest request for change.

Jan.

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan



On 30 October 2012 16:56, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/30/12 2:45 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> > If my page needs updating, feel free to do so, I actually copied all the
> > scripts things from the other page.
>
> I see it now, I must have been blind earlier, sorry for the confusion
>
> Juergen
>
>
> >
> > jan.
> >
> > On 30 October 2012 14:28, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/30/12 1:33 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> >>> I just double checked:
> >>>
> >>> the pointer is: Localization
> >>> AOO<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO>, which clearly
> >>> stated (the very first lines of the document)
> >>>
> >>> "This document is based on and extents
> >>> Localization_for_developers<
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers>.
> >>> The document is work in progress showing the result of a detailed
> >> technical
> >>> analysis of the current process (version 3.4.1) . As such this document
> >>> should be seen as a replacement of
> >>> Localization_for_developers<
> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers>
> >>> ."
> >>
> >> I simply missed some basic info how the tools have to be used etc.. I
> >> was confused...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> But I will happely remove it if you prefer, but then where do I put a
> >> link
> >>> to the more detailed description of the CURRENT process.
> >>
> >> no need to remove it now, I know whats behind and as long as nobody
> >> delete it I am fine
> >>
> >> Juergen
> >>
> >>>
> >>> jan.
> >>>
> >>> On 30 October 2012 13:30, jan iversen <jancasacon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I am guilty.
> >>>>
> >>>> see below.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 30 October 2012 13:22, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 10/27/12 10:51 PM, jan iversen wrote:
> >>>>>> Based on the comments I have received, I have updated the document.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The major changes are:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - removed l10n web page tools
> >>>>>> - no auto-commit in any tools
> >>>>>> - proposed changes to pootle server (based on request from andrea,
> to
> >>>>>> use/change existing tools)
> >>>>>> - added more text on the translation workflow, inkl. local teams
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The document is available as pdf:
> >>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/File:L10procNew2.pdf
> >>>>>> and (due to a polite hint) as a wiki page:
> >>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/new_proposal
> >>>>>> Furthermore a projectplan is available as a wiki page:
> >>>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_AOO/workPlan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> this mail is posted on both ooo-L10n and ooo-dev, but please use
> >> ooo-dev
> >>>>>> for discussions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I noticed that somebody put an "outdated" template on
> >>>>> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Localization_for_developers which I
> >>>>> think is a little bit early.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The new page is a great resource to discuss a new workflow and
> >> necessary
> >>>>> improvements. But the currently "Localization for developers" page
> >>>>> describes how it works today.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The page it points to, is NOT the new proposal, that would be wrong,
> but
> >>>> the first I made with a more detailed description of how it works
> today.
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope that is ok ?
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We should avoid confusion here, the new process is under development
> >> yet
> >>>>> but not available yet.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I totally agree, and I have not made links that suggest otherwise.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Juergen
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Andrea:
> >>>>>> I hope you have time to see if your suggestions are well represented
> >>>>> now,
> >>>>>> so this document could be used as discussion basis when you meet the
> >>>>> pootle
> >>>>>> people.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Have a nice evening.
> >>>>>> jan I.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Reply via email to