Hi Rafaella, all, Rafaella Braconi wrote: > Hi Sophie, > > thank you for this email with great feedback and thoughts. Please see my > comments below: > > On 02/28/09 13:29, sophie wrote: >> Hi Rafaella, Ivo, all >> >> I would like to know how the integration of our changes on Pootle will >> be done. Just to understand and try to figure if we could have a better >> process. >> > The integration of translated files is the same no matter if > translations are carried out in Pootle or in SDF files directly. As you > know we deliver the translations to release engineerings accoring to the > release map and translation schedule (taking into account possible > changes to the schedule which are discussed in the release meetings).
Ok, this is clear for me now :) >> Last time for the 3.0 changes I've done in time in the cws for the UI >> were not integrated, see this issues for example: >> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=91864 >> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=91863 >> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=91847 >> > As far as I can see in the above issues, the changes have been carries > out in Pootle, but has Ivo or Vladimir got the strings with the changes? > As far as I can see they did not get notified. I send a mail for Ivo on the list, but he mays have missed it, that was for cws localisation30 and didn't get through localisation31. > That means that after the translation delivery deadline has passed and > you want to provide some additional fixes, the changes have to be be > integrated in the CWS. How: > submit an issue (as you did) and assign it to Aijin, and cc: fma, vg and > ihi asking to have the fixes integrated. ok, I miss that part. I think that I will write a FAQ for those very important parts that can be forgot from one localization round to another. Do you think it could be useful ? Something like - Do I submit a complete .sdf - To whom do I assign the issue - when do I open an issue - where is gsicheck - is it possible to gsicheck on Pootle - etc. > >> And I've to wait since August 08 to see the correction in March or April >> 09... >> So what would be the best for the l10n teams to make sure the >> corrections are integrated and for the integration team to have less >> hurdle and missing risks, considering the short time and the emergency >> of our fixes: >> >> - work only on a clean .sdf file (the complete one we have on the issue >> is not clean as some corrections have been integrated after gsicheck) >> and provide the corrections via a .sdf containing the corrections only >> >> - work only on Pootle (but as seen above some corrections are left >> apart) so there is may be an integration issue to solve here >> >> - work on .po files provided through an issue (we did that at the very >> begining if I remember well >> >> - ? >> >> Currently the process I use is to correct first the .po files, then >> upload them in Pootle, then correct the .sdf file, then create a new >> .sdf file, not to mention that I've not yet filled issues to track the >> changes and see if they are fixed in the master. It's a lot of >> duplicated work and I'm sure that we can enhance that way of work for >> all teams implied in the process. >> > Yes, sure. The current process is far from perfect and I'm thankful for > any idea that can help us simplifying it :-) > Just 3 ideas that come into my mind are: > > 1) the sdf file that needs to be corrected is the sdf file which results > out of the gsi check. In order not to have to fix those errors both in > pootle and in the sdf, I would encourage all teams to use the > verification checks in Pootle. And I am sure that we can ask to > customize these checks... ok. However under the Chek option in Pootle there is a lot of check that can be made, and some are shown as errors however it's language dependent. What are the most important? > Advantage: by using sdf verification checks in Pootle, translators would > avoid to fix gsi check errors in sdf files. ok > 2) from now on we will be delivering to release engineering diffs files > only via web interface. That means that the verification of translation > integration both in case of major handoffs or later l10n fixes could be > done by using these diffs without the need of submitting lots of l10n > issues. > Advantage: sdf diff files can be used to check if latest translations or > corrections have been delivered and integrated on CWS correctly. ok > 3) l10n fixes will be delivered by the l10n fixes deadline without prior > request to release engineering > Advantage: no additional request/issue need to be submitted to deliver > l10n fixes. However, please not that anything after the last l10n fixes > delivery will not be included and that for anything that needs our > attention an issue still needs to be submitted. ok, this is more simple like that. > > Would the 3 above points help reducing duplication? Yes, thank you! Kind regards Sophie --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
