Am Mittwoch, 14. November 2012 um 21:47 schrieb jan iversen:
> While programming the l10n translation, I have stumbled across something
> which I do not know is a real or theoretical problem. I need an opinion
> from people with more experience.
> 
> Description of the current situation:
> When you run configure with e.g. "--with-lang=da", all languages Are
> inserted in the source files alongside with the original en-US text. This
> works without problems
> 
> BUT, if the developer forget to do a checkout (thereby removing the extra
> languages) but does a commit, then SVN will have all languages in the file.
> After the commit a snapshot (or development) build will contain all
> languauges for that file. Note: If a translation changes, it will be
> replaced in the file with the next build, so it will work. However:
> - developer/snapshot contains an "unwanted" language part
> - it is not clean that all language are in this file, as well as in the sdf
> file (original), and can lead to confusion, where what is maintained.
> 
> What I easily could do, was NOT to overwrite the file, but place a new file
> (same content but with all languages added) in the <platform>/misc
> directory, therefore the original would be left untouched. This requires of
> course some makefile changes (the new l10n process requires anyhow
> changes), which I will do (in a sub-branch) when the system is ready.
> 
> Question:
> 
> Is it a problem that the original is overwritten, and it would be better
> to write a new file (in misc) ?
> 
> or
> 
> Am I thinking about a theoretical problem, that is no real world problem ?
> 

First of all sorry for the late response, I am still haven't read all mails 
after my vacation.
I am not sure if I understand you correct but normally no originals are 
overwritten during the build.
Files get merged in the local output directory and later used from there.

Juergen
> 
> Just to be sure, the effort of doing one or the other are the same, so that
> is not an argument (at least for me), we should do what is correct.
> 
> Jan I. 

Reply via email to