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

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: to  stable/l10n-kde4 or not, that's the question
From:       Franklin <franklin () goodhorse ! idv ! tw>
Date:       2008-01-08 5:05:05
Message-ID: 200801081305.07413.franklin () goodhorse ! idv ! tw
[Download RAW message or body]


Hi,

a) or b) are OK for us.  However, when I was firstly involved into the KDE 
translation jobs, I was really confused with the stable and trunk branches.  
It seemed that some extragear softwares used trunk messages and some used 
stable branches for their released translation.  I still can not tell which 
use which now.  b) is a better choice for this aspect.  Even if you decided 
with option a), that's OK for me too, but I hope to see a way that clearly 
tell us the rule about what software (especially for extragear and playground 
software) uses which branch.


BR,
Franklin

Albert Astals Cid's messages:
> Hi,
>
>   Today I've been speaking today with Dirk about stable/l10n-kde4 and we
> reached a point where we were not sure what to do, so i'll explain the
> situation and let you people say your opinion, as you will be the
> final "users" of the decision.
>
> So the possibilities are:
>
> 	a) Create stable/l10n-kde4 now and make it process messages of KDE 4.0.x
> and make trunk/l10n-kde4 process KDE 4.1 messages
>
> 	b) Keep using trunk/l10n-kde4 for KDE 4.0.x and create stable/l10n-kde4
> and switch trunk/l10n-kde4 to process KDE 4.1 when real KDE 4.1 is nearer
> (say around beta 1 or so)
>
> Pros and Cons:
>
> a) Is clearer in a conceptual way, that's a pro, but in the other side, it
> will create a problem having to move KDE 4.0 improved translations from the
> stable branch to the trunk branch for 4.1 and having two branches always
> makes people get lost easier
>
> b) Solves the two cons that a) option has, that's good, the only problem i
> see there is that it makes it impossible to translate 4.1, but anyone wants
> to translate 4.1 so early? I think starting to translate it around beta 1
> is more than enough.
>
> Both Dirk and me are leaning towards option b) as we think it makes things
> more simple but we greatly value your opinion, so please, tell us what you
> think.
>
> Albert


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

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