On Apr 24, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Herbert Duerr <h...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 24.04.2012 16:55, Risto Jääskeläinen wrote: >>> >>> See: Thread: Fix for bug 116639 almost >> >> >> I don't think that 116639 was the root cause. Looking at the problematic >> string in the screenshot you provided at >> http://www.saunalahti.fi/rjaaskel/Kuvat/Tulostaikkuna.jpg >> the reason was simply a strange translation of what is named "Comments", >> "Kommentare", "Comentarios", "Commenti", etc. in other languages. >> >> In the Finnish localization as of AOO340_rc1 it reads: >> "Kun tämä valinta on tehty, ohjelman lisäämät tyhjät sivut tulostetaan. Tämä >> on tarpeen, kun tulostetaan kaksipuoleisesti. Esimerkiksi kirjassa >> \"luku\"-kappaletyyli on määritelty alkavaksi aina parittomalta sivulta. Jos >> edellinen luku päättyy parittomalle sivulle, %PRODUCTNAME lisää parillisen >> tyhjän sivun. Tämä valinta ohjaa mainitun parillisen sivun tulostusta." >> which is defined in the "STR_PRINTOPTUI 18" line of >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ooo/trunk/extras/l10n/source/fi/localize.sdf >> Getting such a long string into a poor little dialog is does of course cause >> some trouble. >> >>>>> [...] Bug is fixed in >>>>> >>>>> Pootle but correct translation is not yet in publshed package. >> >> >> The other translations for the other STR_PRINTOPTUI lines in the finnish >> localize.sdf were also a bit long. Have they been fixed too? >> >> >>>>> I am sorry if this is not correct way of voting >> >> I'd like to extend that question by asking (e.g. the mentors) if it should >> be possible to split the voting in such situations, so that e.g. individual >> localization could vote for a different revision? Is a staggered release >> process allowed? >> >> Otherwise there would be a inherent scalability problem in the release >> process of such a huge multi-platform and multi-language application >> targeted at end users: if one problematic localization could reset the work >> of everyone else then this would be a recipe for a lot of frustration, as >> building, distributing, announcing and especially testing of a new revision >> is a huge effort and a lot of people are involved. >> > > > I think we can handle this efficiently. But we would need to take > some precautions. Start with making a branch of RC1 in SVN, if RC1 is > approved. If we then want to update a single language or a single > platform, then we can make those changes in the branch.
Or RC2. A branch this big will require coordination with Infra. > I think we would still require a release vote for any additional files > we publish, such as updated translations, etc. So the same 72-hour > voting process. Makes sense to me. > But I don't think it would require that the IPMC do an in-depth review > of the entire release, and it should not be necessary for us to do a > complete regression test. I'd hope the IPMC would be satisfied to > look at the SVN logs and see that only translations had been changed, > and that would be enough to justify their approval. Before we hope, let's get through a release with IPMC approval. Depending on how we do, a push for graduation makes sense. In that case our PMC votes will be enough. Regards, Dave > > -Rob > >> Herbert
