On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote: > > 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 ? > > if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1 > > I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming > scheme, why? > > old aoo40 > > new a00401 > > This makes it not easier to get an overview > I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below. > > > > - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ? > > I would only add languages where we have an active translating > community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and add > them on demand or we create a further project where we add all inactive > languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the latest > templates > so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation factor to see that part of the language is already translated. also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information. > > > - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ? > > We should not merge sdf files back. We work with po files and use Pootle > to manage them and get an overview where we are. Offline translation > will be merged on Pootle first. > we need to, first of all we have sdf files that have not been converted to po, second we have 3.4.1 po files that need to be updated from sdf to 4.0 level. > > And with your new translation tools sdf files become obsolete completely. > yes, but thats just so much more reason to get all sdf files synchronized now. > > > > > @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) > > I am fine with this, ping me for details > will do. > > But we should merge the po files with the latest new template files for > AOO 4.0 to keep everything in sync. > > I don't know why but I noticed sometimes some problems here and I have > to do it twice to get the same and correct word count. > > By the way the Danish pootle-terminology.po file confused me every time > and needs special handling when merged etc. > hmmm dont understand why, its a normal po file, just created by pootle. When you upload to the pootle db it is special handled. This is actually something all languages should have. > > > > 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) > > mmh, I am not sure if I understand what you want to do here. Pootle is > our source and we convert old sdf files to po, merge with the latest > templates and update Pootle. Languages that are on the 4.0 project > already have to be not merged. Pootle is the source here. > as a side remark, svn is our source not pootle. Pootle is just our work area. I assume step 2,3,4) are simple an clear. so now I have PO files from Pootle and PO files from sdf. We have languages (I saw that in my last test), where the following is true: - sdf generated PO files contains translated entries not in Pootle db - Pootle db contain translated entries not in the sdf file hence the merge procedure. rgds jan I. > > > 6) create new languages > > 7) overwrite PO-dir with sdf-PO > > use the updated and merged po files, merged against the latest template > files > > > 8) sync PO dir with pootle (only for lang. with differences) > > > > If we agree, I can do it very fast (within a day). > > > > I would as mentioned earlier only support langs where we see an active > community. Move all other langs in a separate project to reduce the work > long term. And we should remove them from the source temporary as long > as they are not supported. > > Juergen > > > 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 > >> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
