Hi all, before making large changes to our documentation build (see other email), I'd like to start a discussion on inactive / unmaintained translations. For an objective metric, I looked at the date of the last translation update, ie commits that only touched the respective subdirectory in Documentation/. I came up with: (there may be better ways to do this, possibly even in one git invocation) $ git log --format=%H -- Documentation/$lang/ > Documentation.$lang.commits $ git log --format=%H -- Documentation/ :^Documentation/$lang/ > Documentation.non-$lang.commits $ cat Documentation.$lang.commits | grep -v -f Documentation.non-$lang.commits | git log --no-walk --stdin
Based on this, I would group our 11 translations into the following categories: * very active: fr, it (web needs some updates for recent changes) * maintained: ja (mostly, web needs some updates for recent changes), de (I try to maintain at least web; other documents are in a worse state) * reasonable: es (until 2020), ca (translation of Usage manual in 2022, last change before that in 2019), zh (updates in 2021; still quite a bit of English text in there?) * endangered: hu (translation of Essay in 2021; last fixes before that in 2017; last real changes in 2016?); pt (added in 2018, translation fixes in 2019, technical fixes in 2020) * outdated: cs (last update by Pavel in 2012; some passages copied from German manual!), nl (last update by Jan in 2012) Especially the last category is bad and I would like to propose that we delete these translations; I think it is better to have the community use the English version instead of a translation from more than 10 years ago. If somebody wants to update them, I guess they are better off starting from scratch based on the English version anyway. For Hungarian and Portuguese, I'm not so sure: On the one hand, they have seen "recent" updates, but the most important "document", that is web being served on lilypond.org, is heavily outdated. Overall, I personally think it would also be better to remove them. If somebody wants to update and maintain them, it would be easy to bring them back from git history. What do you think? Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
