openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal -- AOO 4.0.1 Release
Date Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:07:17 GMT
On 8/7/13 11:47 AM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 11:28, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/6/13 6:42 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 6 August 2013 17:15, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/6/13 3:05 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is important that we don't fall in the "release and forget" trap,
>>>>>> i.e., "this bug was already known when 4.0 was released, so it doesn't
>>>>>> need to be evaluated again for 4.0.1". At least, we should re-evaluate
>>>>>> the old proposed blockers: some of them might have become more
>> relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>> in theory and with an idealistic view I would agree but for practical
>>>>> reason I don't. You should not forget that issues have to be fixed as
>>>>> well.
>>>>> We should really be careful here and should focus on the most serious
>>>>> issues only. From my point of view many proposed showstoppers for 4.0
>>>>> were no showstopper and why should we prioritize them now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We shouldn't prioritize them, just look at them again. My suggestion was
>>>> to have regressions and old nominated blockers as PROPOSED blockers
>>>> (status: ?), not as blockers (status: +). Some will have to be rejected
>>>> again, obviously; but it is very bad, as a user and a community member,
>> to
>>>> get an answer like my (made up) example above. Of course, anybody who is
>>>> concerned can propose an issue as a blocker, but a quick review makes
>> sense
>>>> in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  we have volunteers who are ready to
>>>>>> work and Pootle is not ready yet for their language, or it only offers
>>>>>> 3.4.1. See http://markmail.org/message/**4oxacrviktdbmbcv<
>> http://markmail.org/message/4oxacrviktdbmbcv>for more.
>>>>>>
>>>>> where are the issues? Where are the volunteers to work on this? Nobody
>>>>> should plan with other peoples time and willingness
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One issue: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=122910<
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122910>
>>>>
>>>> As for the volunteers, I understand that the Pootle update is a lot of
>>>> work, as I wrote. Fact is, this lot of work is instrumental in
>> attracting
>>>> volunteers successfully and will remain the same amount of work whether
>>>> done now or after 4.0.1. And doing it now (or soon) is a nice
>> opportunity
>>>> for the project for a combination of reasons: OpenOffice 4.0 had great
>>>> exposure, volunteers want to translate it into their language, Summer is
>>>> the best period for people to contribute in their spare time, telling
>>>> someone that his efforts will be turned into an official release next
>> month
>>>> is very motivating... But indeed so far you are the only one who
>> actually
>>>> did this Pootle administration work.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can give a hand, with this work, but reading through the mails it seems
>>> we have quite a few open issues (mainly raised by jsc):
>>> - Should we make 4.01 in pootle or as suggested continue working on 4.0 ?
>>
>> if we create a new project I would use 4.0.1
>>
>> I see you have created new project names and used again a new naming
>> scheme, why?
>>
>> old aoo40
>>
>> new a00401
>>
>> This makes it not easier to get an overview
>>
> I know, but this was just an experiment to test if I could copy the db
> easily. That did not work, so its the old way, as described below.
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>> - Do we want to add languages where we have no translation teams ?
>>
>> I would only add languages where we have an active translating
>> community. We should save all other languages in a secure place and add
>> them on demand or we create a further project where we add all inactive
>> languages and keep them more or less up-to-date by merging to the latest
>> templates
>>
> 
> so you dont agree with andrea, that argues (correctly) its a motivation
> factor to see that part of the language is already translated.
> 
> also keep in mind, that genLang hopefully comes soon, then we need to
> convert the sdf files anyhow, not to loose the information.

as I mentioned store them in a secure place or an additional project but
away from the active ones. Simply reduced work and the motivation of
people who actually do the work is important as well ;-)

> 
> 
>>
>>> - How do we merge languages changed in pootle and sdf ?
>>
>> We should not merge sdf files back. We work with po files and use Pootle
>> to manage them and get an overview where we are. Offline translation
>> will be merged on Pootle first.
>>
> we need to, first of all we have sdf files that have not been converted to
> po, second we have 3.4.1 po files that need to be updated from sdf to 4.0
> level.

sure we have to do it ones but I talked more about the handling after
this initial step

> 
>>
>> And with your new translation tools sdf files become obsolete completely.
>>
> 
> yes, but thats just so much more reason to get all sdf files synchronized
> now.

I think I said this already. We have to convert them all in po, merge
against the latest templates from 4.0 and safe them in a secure
place/project and use new languages on demand


Juergen


> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> @jsc, I have trunk on my linux, so I suggest the following procedure
>>> (provided you agree):
>>>
>>> 1) I convert all sdf files to po files (to be sure lets agree offlist on
>>> the actual cmds and parm to use)
>>
>> I am fine with this, ping me for details
>>
> will do.
> 
> 
>>
>> But we should merge the po files with the latest new template files for
>> AOO 4.0 to keep everything in sync.
>>
>> I don't know why but I noticed sometimes some problems here and I have
>> to do it twice to get the same and correct word count.
>>
>> By the way the Danish pootle-terminology.po file confused me every time
>> and needs special handling when merged etc.
>>
> hmmm dont understand why, its a normal po file, just created by pootle.
> When you upload to the pootle db it is special handled.
> 
> This is actually something all languages should have.
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>> 2) upload the PO files to a temp dir on translate-vm2.a.o
>>> 3) sync db with po dir on translate-vm2.a.o
>>> 4) create project 4.01 with content of 4.0
>>> 5) compare if Pootle files contain newer info then sdf-PO files (this
>> will
>>> be the difficult part)
>>
>> mmh, I am not sure if I understand what you want to do here. Pootle is
>> our source and we convert old sdf files to po, merge with the latest
>> templates and update Pootle. Languages that are on the 4.0 project
>> already have to be not merged. Pootle is the source here.
>>
> 
> as a side remark, svn is our source not pootle. Pootle is just our work
> area.
> 
> I assume step 2,3,4) are simple an clear. so now I have PO files from
> Pootle and PO files from sdf. We have languages (I saw that in my last
> test), where the following is true:
> - sdf generated PO files contains translated entries not in Pootle db
> - Pootle db contain translated entries not in the sdf file
> 
> hence the  merge procedure.
> 
> rgds
> jan I.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>> 6) create new languages
>>> 7) overwrite PO-dir with sdf-PO
>>
>> use the updated and merged po files, merged against the latest template
>> files
>>
>>> 8) sync PO dir with pootle (only for lang. with differences)
>>>
>>> If we agree, I can do it very fast (within a day).
>>>
>>
>> I would as mentioned earlier only support langs where we see an active
>> community. Move all other langs in a separate project to reduce the work
>> long term. And we should remove them from the source temporary as long
>> as they are not supported.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>> rgds
>>> jan I.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>   Andrea.
>>>>
>>>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<
>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message