2013/1/14 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > We have a translation branch, but for typos, I think (correct me if I am > wrong) that of little relevance as we have back-and-forth merging.
Right. > Factual errors occuring only in one translation should be fixed there. > Factual errors inherited from the English version should be fixed there > first. If they are already fixed there, then the _whole_ relevant > passage should be translated, and commit ids adapted, namely then the > job should be done right, and likely in the translation branch. We can use the translation branch as safety net in any case, provided that it gets merged into staging once a week at most. I used to do this but you have done a few merges and now I don't know if I'm still responsible of it. Result of make translation-status has to be committed, also. > I have no big clue here, but that is more or less my gut feeling. I > don't know how one would approach retranslating or reworking an existing > passage. Do the regular translators get to see Rietveld reviews? I think not in general. > A retranslation by a non-translator would seem to warrant proper review, > but it would be somewhat pointless if the actual main translator only > notices the review once it has been committed. Please don't forget to contact/cooperate directly with the main translator first. It would be good to have more listed, regular translators/retranslators, so the main translator should pose no obstacle to this, but ask first in any case. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
