On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote: > On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > No problem, I would have preferred another way, but this is less work now. > I will simply copy aoo40 to aoo4.0.1, no merge or anything else. > > I am currently running refresh_stat, and looking at how long it takes, it > must have been quite a while since it last ran. After that comes > sync_stores in aoo400. > > then copy aoo400 dir to aoo4.0.1 and update_stores.
let us use aoo401 without dots for the physical name on disk and Apache OpenOffice 4.0.1 as UI name > > that runs in a window on my pc, so it is not really extra work. > > Hope that also satisfies the requests from andrea. > > rgds > jan I. > > >> >> 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 >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
