On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 07:23 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> I included your file. Small remark: the file is ISO-8859-1 encoded
> while the PO file header announces it to be UTF-8. So, I indeed
> converted the file with "iconv --from iso-8859-1 --to utf-8" before
> putting it in place.
Thanks for
Quoting Eddy Petri?or ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Christian Perrier wrote:
> >> Wasn't Romanian between those, too? Or was that regression made in
> >> one of the multiple previous uncoordinated uploads?
> >
> >
> > Romanian had 8 untranslated strin
> Ok, here it is for Dutch (skipping LCFC because the changes are
> extremely minimal).
I included your file. Small remark: the file is ISO-8859-1 encoded
while the PO file header announces it to be UTF-8. So, I indeed
converted the file with "iconv --from iso-8859-1 --to utf-8" before
putting it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Perrier wrote:
>> Wasn't Romanian between those, too? Or was that regression made in
>> one of the multiple previous uncoordinated uploads?
>
>
> Romanian had 8 untranslated strings in the former version.
Was the ro.po file sent to the Rom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Em Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:25:54 +0100
Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:07 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > No, the reason for insisting on a t-p-u upload was that the
> > > *template* change was inappr
> Wasn't Romanian between those, too? Or was that regression made in
> one of the multiple previous uncoordinated uploads?
Romanian had 8 untranslated strings in the former version.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, the reason for insisting on a t-p-u upload was that the *template*
> change was inappropriate because it was a regression for users of several
> languages (Dutch, Danish, Italian, Galician, Swedish, Brazilian Portuguese,
> J
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:07 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > No, the reason for insisting on a t-p-u upload was that the *template*
> > change was inappropriate because it was a regression for users of several
> > languages (Dutch, Danish, Italian, Galician, Swedish, Brazilian Portuguese,
> > Ja
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 03:28:37PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote:
> On 2007-02-18 Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > The version in testing has an RC bug, #409750. But an uncoordinated
> > > template change is enough of a reason for me to reject this update and
> > > require a targetted fix via t-p-
> No, the reason for insisting on a t-p-u upload was that the *template*
> change was inappropriate because it was a regression for users of several
> languages (Dutch, Danish, Italian, Galician, Swedish, Brazilian Portuguese,
> Japanese, Basque, Czech, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and German). Th
> It seems that I have to prepare a t-p-u version with only the
> important bits from the changelogs of from my initial mail anyway
> so if it's OK for the RMs I will add the template change alongside
> with all translations to that, too.
Hmmm, I'm not sure I get the exact plan.
My proposal, aft
Hi
On 2007-02-18 Christian Perrier wrote:
> > The version in testing has an RC bug, #409750. But an uncoordinated
> > template change is enough of a reason for me to reject this update and
> > require a targetted fix via t-p-u. I know Christian will have this
> > covered no matter what, but the
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 11:12 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Yeah, I was considering this and I understand that very short delays
> may be a problem for these translators. In that specific case, the
> changes are *very* minor (Developer's Reference writing style
> compliance) and, for instance for
On Sunday 18 February 2007 11:12, Christian Perrier wrote:
> So what you propose is reverting the changes or maybe still ask the
> maintainers to do an update throught t-p-u?
As vorlon suggested t-p-u that is probably the best option.
After all, in the long run quality _is_ improved by the string
> The problem I have with this is the assumption that translators will
> always be available to do this on so short notice. That is just not
> realistic. You are virtually demanding that 11 people give priority to
> this rather minor issue, even though they may have other activities
> planned (
On Sunday 18 February 2007 10:31, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Another possibility is also handling a call for translation updates
> lasting for 3 days (the templates changes are very minor and can
> easily be updated very quickly by translators) and then upload a new
> version of the package in unst
> The version in testing has an RC bug, #409750. But an uncoordinated
> template change is enough of a reason for me to reject this update and
> require a targetted fix via t-p-u. I know Christian will have this covered
> no matter what, but the l10n update policy is intended for the benefit of
>
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 02:37:24PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 17 February 2007 14:14, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > > * Changed wording in Debconf templates to better fit to the
> > > graphical interface (thanks to Frank Kuester). Closes: #411165
> > Please consider this as an immediat
On Saturday 17 February 2007 17:24, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > It seems to me that the changes in this case don't warrant a release
> > exception at all. Why not just ask the RMs to not accept this
> > version?
>
> Well, of course, also...but, this, I think is the RM decision which I
> don't real
> It seems to me that the changes in this case don't warrant a release
> exception at all. Why not just ask the RMs to not accept this version?
Well, of course, also...but, this, I think is the RM decision which I
don't really want to interfere with.
My point is that, whether or not the package
On Saturday 17 February 2007 14:14, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > * Changed wording in Debconf templates to better fit to the
> > graphical interface (thanks to Frank Kuester). Closes: #411165
>
> Please consider this as an immediate NMU annoucement as soon as I can
> get my hands on your new temp
> In GNOME, there is a string freeze which forbids such changes for
> several weeks before the planned release. I think we have no reason for
> not doing the same in Debian. If we want translated templates, we must
> not change them every other day, it's as simple as that.
I agree. The GNOME mode
Le samedi 17 février 2007 à 14:14 +0100, Christian Perrier a écrit :
> > mysql-dfsg-5.0 (5.0.32-6) unstable; urgency=low
> >
> > * Changed wording in Debconf templates to better fit to the graphical
> > interface (thanks to Frank Kuester). Closes: #411165
> > * Lintian suggested style chan
> mysql-dfsg-5.0 (5.0.32-6) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * Changed wording in Debconf templates to better fit to the graphical
> interface (thanks to Frank Kuester). Closes: #411165
> * Lintian suggested style changes to some other Debconf questions.
Don't tell me that you *again* broke out
24 matches
Mail list logo
