[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: Reminder KimDaBa release tomorrow.
From:       Jeroen Wijnhout <Jeroen.Wijnhout () kdemail ! net>
Date:       2004-02-13 13:59:59
Message-ID: 200402131506.50600.Jeroen.Wijnhout () kdemail ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 13 February 2004 14:46, Jesper K. Pedersen wrote:
> I'm not sure you understand my problem (or I do not understand your
> solution ;-)
> so let me show it to you:
>
> Day 1: KimDaBa version 1.1 is released
> Day 2: Jesper continues working on HEAD, adds some strings, and more
> important delete or modifies other strings.
> Day 3: scripty executes, and updates the templates
> Day 4: A translator wants to translate version 1.1 to be included in 1.1.1,
> but he can't simply do that because the templates are now for HEAD.

Correct, my "solution" doesn't allow new strings for 1.1.1.

> Of course, that would not require a branch of all CVS.
>
> | Adding new strings within a branch is currently just not possible.
>
> Which is what I'm trying to overcome, perhaps its not worth the effort, but
> who know.

If it worth the effort for you, then please make it happen. Still you need to 
convince the translators to translators your branch as well.

> Would this work:
> 1) I agree not to add any new strings for 1.1.x releases compared to the
> 1.1 release
>
> 2) I tag only kimdaba.po files and docs/../kimdaba/*
>
> 3) If a new team wants to add a translation for KimDaBa 1.1.x, then they
> would need to check out the templates in KimDaBa for 1.1, and would need to
> explicit themself set the tag kimdaba_1_1_release to get their files
> includes with the 1.1.x releases.

Yes, that would work.

> Is the above worth the trouble at all, or should I just conclude that no
> new translations will show up in 1.1.x releases? What I'm really aiming at
> here is to ensure that translators see their translation with their users
> as soon as possible, that is, do not have to wait 4-6 month before it gets
> there, but I might be trying to solve a non existent problem.

>From the point of view of KEG it is worth the trouble. However, I'm concerned 
about the translation teams. For them the situation becomes much unclearer 
(let's say fuzzy), because they will have to deal with many branches. Maybe 
it is no big deal to them, I don't know.

> Finally, should I remove the tag + branch for everything irrelevant again
> or would that just make things worse?

I guess you should ask one of the sysadmins.

best,
Jeroen

-- 
Kile - an Integrated LaTeX Environment for KDE
http://kile.sourceforge.net
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]