On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote: > 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.
as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project but away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of people who actually do the work is important as well ;-) > > >> >>> - 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. sure we have to do it ones but I talked more about the handling after this initial step > >> >> 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. I think I said this already. We have to convert them all in po, merge against the latest templates from 4.0 and safe them in a secure place/project and use new languages on demand Juergen > > >> >>> >>> @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 >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
