On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 05:41:05PM -0500, Klaus Weide wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2000, Webmaster Jim wrote: > > Unfortunately I have not had the spare cycles lately to straighten this > > out. Can someone take a look at the Translation Project standards and > > help me set up a re-package of the Lynx tar file so that the robot can > > be happy? > Don't repackage, if that's not really necessary. > The robot doesn't look at tar files anyway AFAIK. > F. Pinard: > > I just noticed that the Translation Project robot received a few submissions > > for either `Lynx-2.8.4dev.1' or `lynx-2.8.4.dev1', > > Lynx-dev has been using the following scheme for quite some time (years) > consistently: > (read the '^' caret characters as rotated 'less then' signs) > 2.8.2dev.1 > ^ [...] > > both schemes are not being ready to be processed by the robot. > > Possible solutions: > 1.) Only make the TP aware of "releases", use only the (curently) > three left digits (the short version to the right of "a.k.a."). > 2.) "We" (lynx-dev) change our numbering. > 3.) The robot is modified, if necessary, to grok our scheme. > 4.) Somebody has to translate from our scheme to one acceptable > by the robot. Basically what Jim Spath has in mind with > "re-packaging". [...] > 3.) is preferable in my opinion. If any changes are necessary to the > TP's procedures, they should not be difficult. > > Alternative 4.) adds another layer of confusion and another place where > things may go wrong, or not happen in a timely manner. I now think the "re-package" is the wrong approach; we simply need to pass a URL via a mail message to the robot address that a new Lynx version with possibly new messages has been created. We could add this to the script that does the code check-out when building the source archives and web-indexing them. Then I don't need to do it myself. I just need the numbering scheme that the robot will recognize, and a possibly unique URL to advise the robot that this version is new. > > We would also need the PO file in advance for any translator submission. > So "somebody" has to execute the algorithm > > IF > lynx.pot is substantially different from the previous version > THEN > mail lynx.pot to TP <???@???.???> > > It would be best if Tom could do that when he updates the code for > download... See above paragraph. > > Please attempt to use common versioning schemes before introducing others, > > or make sure I modify the robot in advance for the schemes you introduce. > Please make the robot understand our versioning scheme. Right. Lynx numbering goes back several years... ------ <http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/db/users/us/md/lib/bcpl/jspath/face.xbm> <http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%22web+home+for+jim+spath%22> Marvin the Paranoid Android says: I mean where's the percentage in being kind or helpful to a robot if it doesn't have any gratitude circuits? (This is the actual fortune for today -- I'm not making this up: Jim) ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
