On 17 June 2013 09:15, Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15.06.2013 09:29, janI wrote: > >> On Jun 14, 2013 11:45 PM, "Ariel Constenla-Haile" <arie...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:40:23PM +0200, janI wrote: >>> >>>> The change comes from me, after a discussion on the dev list and was >>>> applied as agreed. >>>> >>> IIRC you asked about x-comment, not about x-no-translate (this one is >>> the root of the build breaker). >>> >> not thst it shall be a long discussion,:-) but I did ask for quite a >> number of changes, like removing non en-us entries, cleaning duplicate >> en-us text entries and a couple of x- problems. >> >> BUT never the less, since it is a build breaker, it needs to be >>>> >>> reverted. >> >>> There is no need to the revert the whole commit, only two files, see >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122518<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122518>and >>> the attachments >>> there. >>> >> only reverting 2 files is a lot easier, thx for the advice. >> > > Looks like Ariel has already done the proposed review. Good news that only > two files have to be reverted.
I have reverted one, and Ariel seems to make some experiments with the other. > > > >> Keeping comments and splitting long lines may be an enhancement (see >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122518#c9<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122518#c9>) >>> but there is >>> no need to revert that. >>> >>> And the error with CaptionOrderNumberingFirst >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122518#c10<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122518#c10>comes >>> from the >>> original commit that forgot to mark this as x-no-translate (this flags >>> the string as not-extractable by localize so that it does not appear in >>> the sdf file, nor is merged back) >>> http://hg.services.openoffice.**org/OOO340/rev/ca60b76cc688<http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/rev/ca60b76cc688> >>> >>> Ps. the commit is old, so at least it underlines my request from earlier >>>> that we regulary build languages in buildbot. >>>> >>> I do build with --with-lang="en-US es" and the bug didn't show up >>> until the translation was integrated (rev. 1489712 from June 5th). >>> Building languages in the buildbot is a nonsense if there is no >>> periodical integration of localization. >>> >> I agree with you, but I have the opinion that localization should be >> integrated just as frequently as source changes. My target with l10n is >> still that pootle changes moves automatically to svn (maybe with a delay >> of >> a day). >> >> If we dont build with-lang regulary we dont see if e.g. rejuvenate01 >> changes breaks in a language build, so its not only the translated text >> that makes a difference. >> > > I have understood Ariel's comment so, that he wants to add periodical > integration of localization data, not to remove --with-lang builds. If my > assumption is correct, then the two of you want the same thing. And I > agree with that. > > yeah the difference is in some small details, which can be easily ironed out, no real problems. Just for me to sure, am I off the hook or am a still a show stopper for 4.0 (which I DO NOT want to be) ? In case something is missing, please just go ahead and do it, I will apriciate it and not be offended. rgds jan I. > -Andre > > > >> rgds >> jan i >> >>> >>> Regards >>> -- >>> Ariel Constenla-Haile >>> La Plata, Argentina >>> >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
