Re: [Gretl-users] when TP handles translations, it expects to handle all (fwd)
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:12:20PM -0400, Allin Cottrell wrote:
Hello all,
Here's a follow-up to my last message:
http://lists.wfu.edu/pipermail/gretl-users/2007-September/001819.html
To clue everyone in, I'm appending the message I recently received
from Benno Schulenberg.
Perhaps we should discuss this. Benno's point, which seems fair
enough, is that if we're using the Translation Project (TP) at
all, we should use it consistently.
But is the TP the best way of promoting and coordinating the
translation of gretl? Presumably, we have the alternative of
withdrawing from the TP and going over to using CVS exclusively.
I'm not advocating that, just setting out options. It doesn't
make a lot of difference to me, but perhaps it makes a bigger
difference to you?
The TP is useful for translators who don't have access to CVS, because it
provides an email frontend, but (as in my case) if a translator has access to
CVS and regularly commits changes to the XX.po file, when a new release
approaches, the TP robot sends a file that does not contain the changes in CVS,
so it has to be updated using the CVS file (this is rather easily accomplished
with the gettext msgmerge utility, but it's an unnecessary duplicate work).
Since there is the possibility to mark some .po files as "external" (please do
that for Italian file!) I think we could happily stick with the TP site and let
each translator choose how to manage his .po file.
Cri
--
GPG/PGP Key-Id 0x943A5F0E - http://www.linux.it/~cri/cri.asc
Free software, free society - http://www.fsfeurope.org
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 189 bytes)