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 11:55:10 GMT
On 8/7/13 1:51 PM, janI wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 13:07, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>
> 
> No problem, I would have preferred another way, but this is less work now.
> I will simply copy aoo40 to aoo4.0.1, no merge or anything else.
> 
> I am currently running refresh_stat, and looking at how long it takes, it
> must have been quite a while since it last ran. After that comes
> sync_stores in aoo400.
> 
> then copy aoo400 dir to aoo4.0.1 and update_stores.

let us use aoo401 without dots for the physical name on disk and Apache
OpenOffice 4.0.1 as UI name

> 
> that runs in a window on my pc, so it is not really extra work.
> 
> Hope that also satisfies the requests from andrea.
> 
> rgds
> jan I.
> 
> 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> 


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


Mime
View raw message