On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:34 AM, janI <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10 April 2013 10:20, Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 4/10/13 10:06 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > > Rob Weir wrote: > > >> My proposed landing page is here: > > >> http://www.openoffice.org/projects/untranslated.html > > > > > > The page and the strategy are good. I wonder what the best timing is (I > > > don't have an answer). > > > > > > Between now and 4.0 (but possibly all within 10 days or so) we will see > > > the following l10n-relevant changes: > > > > > > 1) Strings to be translated: OpenOffice 3.4.1 -> OpenOffice 4.0 > > > > > > 2) New Pootle server (which might offer good performance and, after > > > discussion, the possibility to register non-committers accounts) > > > 10 days is cutting it a bit short, something like 2 weeks sounds better. I > have to get 2.5 installed, and the configuration of the current vm is not > as documented/straight forward as it could have been. > > > > > > > 3) Strings refactoring (40 PO files instead of 240) > > > There has been an offlist discussion, and consensus is that we need to test > this caredully once I think it works, therefore it will not be released for > 4.0 > > We might releasee it for helpcontent2 (8 files instead of many), that > depends on my capability to dig out the last build system problems. > > > > > > 4) New internal localization process, i.e., how we integrate PO files. > > > This is less visible for translators, anyway, > > > Same as 3. > > > > > > > Starting the call immediately and then having at least three major > > > workflow changes would be problematic. So what I don't know is the > > > order/timeframe of actions 1-3. Can anyone make an estimate? If it > makes > > > sense (i.e., if we have plans for major changes in the very near > future) > > > we might want to do one or more of these actions before issuing a large > > > call for volunteers. > > > > I would avoid any bigger change in parallel to the 4.0 translation. Once > > we have the sidebar branch on trunk we should first check how big the > > changes are compared to 3.4.1 > > > I agree, but only due to the time frame constrain. I think it would be > better to have the po file change in 4.0 where everybody expects changes > not backwards compatible, but that would problaly delay 4.0 a month. > >
Another option is to put off the push for more languages. So with 4.0 we just work to update the languages we already have, but bring in additional languages later. This might be done as a "second edition" of 4.0, as we did with the additional 3.4.1 languages. -Rob > rgds > Jan I. > > > > > Juergen > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Andrea. > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
