On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > >> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> >>> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap, >>> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it doesn't >>> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should re-evaluate >>> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more relevant. >>> >> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical >> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as >> well. >> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious >> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0 >> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now. >> > > We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion was > to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers > (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be rejected > again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community member, to > get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody who is > concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review makes sense > in my opinion. > > > we have volunteers who are ready to >>> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only offers >>> 3.4.1. See >>> http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for >>> more. >>> >> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this? Nobody >> should plan with other peoples time and willingness >> > > One issue: > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910> > > As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot of > work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in attracting > volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work whether > done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice opportunity > for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had great > exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language, Summer is > the best period for people to contribute in their spare time, telling > someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release next month > is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who actually > did this Pootle administration work.
I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it seems we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc): - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on 4.0 ? - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ? - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ? @jsc, I have trunk on my linux, so I suggest the following procedure (provided you agree): 1) I convert all sdf files to po files (to be sure lets agree offlist on the actual cmds and parm to use) 2) upload the PO files to a temp dir on translate-vm2.a.o 3) sync db with po dir on translate-vm2.a.o 4) create project 4.01 with content of 4.0 5) compare if Pootle files contain newer info then sdf-PO files (this will be the difficult part) 6) create new languages 7) overwrite PO-dir with sdf-PO 8) sync PO dir with pootle (only for lang. with differences) If we agree, I can do it very fast (within a day). rgds jan I. > Regards, > Andrea. > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
