Tom Fifield <t...@openstack.org> wrote on 25/02/2015 06:46:13 AM: > On 24/02/15 19:27, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:05:17PM +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>> [...] > > > I'm not familiar with how the translations works, but if they are > > waiting until the freeze before starting translation work I'd > > say that is a mistaken approach. Obviously during active dev part > > of the cycle, some translated strings are in flux, so if translation > > was taking place in parallel there could be some wasted effort, but > > I'd expect that to be the minority case. I think the majority of > > translation work can be done in parallel with dev work and the freeze > > time just needs to tie up the small remaining bits. > > > So, two points: > > 1) We wouldn't be talking about throwing just a couple of percent of > their work away. > > As an example, even without looking at the introduction of new strings > or deleting others, you may not be aware that changing a single word in > a string in the code means that entire string needs to be re-translated. > Even with the extensive translation memory systems we have making > suggestions as best they can, we're talking about very, very significant > amounts of "wasted effort".
How difficult would it be to try quantifying this "wasted effort"? For example, if someone could write a script that extracts the data for a histogram showing the amount of strings (e.g., in Nova) that have been changed/overridden in consequent patches up to 1 week apart, between 1 and 2 weeks apart, and so on up to, say, 52 weeks. Regards, Alex > Regards, > > > Tom
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
