Pavel Sanda wrote: > Georg Baum wrote: >> IMHO all these entries do still need an explicit OK from a native >> speaker, but maybe I am misunderstanding something. Could you please >> explain how you interpret the review file? > > My feeling was that starting to track every and each word movement is > overengineering, though strictly speaking you are right.
I don't see the difference between the words you kept and those which were removed. A translation of a newly added word is as reliable as a changed translation if it comes from a trustable source. I think a review should be tried for all new and changed translations. For the "graph" example the old german translation was actually better than the new one (the new one is not wrong if you only look at the word, but uses a different meaning which does not make sense in the context). > The original idea about this file was to primarily have list of languages > which need to have ack in case some new face appears on the list (so I can > quickly check and ask him before he disappear as often happens). OK a complete new language is indeed more important. > So to me keeping list of unreviewed languages for 2.0 and visibly > untranslated four new entries in 2.1 is more than enough. I don't have > strong opinion about it so we can put your list back if you insists, but > given than I'm already most obsessive person in our team when it comes to > pushing random users and translators to check this file I wonder who is > going to read through the database you started to create. I think we should at least try, since the work for the individual translator is not much: He only needs to look at one language. If nobody answers - OK, then we can't help and we are done. Georg
