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 Thu, 08 Aug 2013 08:52:01 GMT
On 8/8/13 10:15 AM, janI wrote:
> On 8 August 2013 08:06, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/7/13 8:44 PM, janI wrote:
>>> On 7 August 2013 16:44, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/7/13 2:09 PM, janI wrote:
>>>>> On 7 August 2013 14:04, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7 August 2013 12:55, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dropping the dots can potentially create ambiguous names.
>>>>>> Probably not a problem unless there are many versions available
>>>>>> simultaneously, but something to be aware of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> correct, and a fast test, showed that we will have problems if project
>>>> name
>>>>> != disk name.
>>>>>
>>>>> No global pootle commands will work (refresh_stat, sync_stores), that
>> has
>>>>> to be done for each project. And if you forget it and use a global
>>>> command,
>>>>> pootle creates the . filled dir for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Due to the outcome of my test, I will stick to project name == disk
>> name
>>>>
>>>> that sounds really like a bug and I would always prefer to run the
>>>> commands on the projects you want explicitly and not global on all
>>>>
>>>
>>> You cannot really call it a bug, the project settings contain no field to
>>> define  a directory.
>>
>> well I noticed that I have new rights and can't create projects anymore :-(
>>
> 
> you actually received a mail about a month ago about the setup changes,
> when andrea joined the administrators.

yes I remember and I forgot to answer in time, it's a limitation from my
perspective and not useful

> 
> 
>>
>> We should not mix things here I am talking about the name on the disk
>> that is probably the same as the project name (I can't check anymore)
>> and the visible display name.
>>
>> If we use the short name aoo401 or aoo410 or aoo500 the global commands
>> will always work. We don't need the dots here in the name, please keep
>> it simple it's for our internal use only. The display name should of
>> course show a more descriptive name.
>>
> fine we are back to my original proposal, I just tried to implement your
> wish (see earlier mail in this thread).

no, you misunderstood me. I meant 4.0.1 for the display name but it's of
course my mistake to be not more explicit. And I gave examples of the
disk names I saw

old
aoo40
aoo40help

new
a004.0.1
a00401
a00401help
aoo4.0.1
aoo4.0.1help

expected from my perspective
aoo401
aoo401help


> 
> 
>>
>> Yes we share the server but we use a very unique naming scheme for our
>> project.
>>
> The naming is actually quite normal (apart from help, which should really
> have been aoohelp401).

well I simply appended "help" to the main project. I haven't thought too
much about this

Juergen

> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You might prefer single projects, but e.g. a refresh_stat command should
>> be
>>> used across all projects.
>>
>> that will work
>>
>>
>>>
>>> personally I prefer to start the sync command on all projects, and leave
>>> the terminal (go for coffee) while it runs. I also highly agree with sebb
>>> that not using the same name leads to more confusion, we share this
>> server
>>> with all (potentially) asf projects.
>>
>> It seems that we had a misunderstanding here, the internal project name
>> is indeed always the name if the disk directory
>>
>> But I still don't understand why you have started a new naming scheme. I
>> tried to establish a new simple one starting with AOO 4.0 and now
>> instead of using the same you started a new one with dots. I simply
>> don't understand.
>>
> 
> Well read your own mails (earlier in this thread) you wrote that you
> preferred aoo4.0.1
> 
> and maybe take a look what the status of translate actually is :-)
> 
> rgds
> jan I.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> for general info refresh_stat has been running for more than 5 hours now,
>>> and is finally slowly comming to an end, then I will start the sync job.
>>>
>>
>> we should definitely create a cron job for this
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>> rgds
>>> jan I
>>>
>>> Juergen
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> rgds
>>>>> jan I.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
> 


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


Mime
View raw message