Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> writes: > Philip Hands <p...@hands.com> (2024-03-05): >> Cool, in that case I'll fix those two things and then use the result >> for the MR[1], and if the openQA test runs look OK, will merge that. > > Only skimmed over it, but that looks sensible, thanks all. > > Is it worth getting d-l-english involved in a final review before > getting that translated? Contrary to a lot of not-so-critical l10n > material, that particular screen is crucial, and I'd hate it if we > wasted translator efforts due to a missed typo or obvious improvement.
I'm happy with doing that, and we might as well get it right given that it's been ~12 years since the first bug, so a few more days makes no odds. I'm pretty sympathetic with the idea of simply dropping the password advice (as just mentioned by Diederik) but it seems that Holger prefers to keep it in -- either is fine with me. BTW I don't know much about how the translation side of things works, but given that there are many ways of getting the fine detail of this to be incorrect in various ways, is there a standard method for adding hints for translators, and should that be done? Cheers, Phil. -- Philip Hands -- https://hands.com/~phil
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
