How about just simply remove "- Fatal Error" from the dialog title string? it won't add one more string for translation.
zhangjf On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 6/28/12 6:23 PM, zhangjf wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Jürgen Schmidt >> <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/28/12 6:12 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>>> On 6/28/12 5:33 PM, zhangjf wrote: >>>>> If it still needs more time for discussion, I think it is also one >>>>> option to only commit the new string change at first to catch up >>>>> translation. It should have no impacts on function without committing >>>>> the code. In this way, please review the new dialog and string first. >>>>> >>>>> Is it acceptable? >>>> >>>> sure, the way how it works is to check in the src file running localize >>>> to create a new sdf, convert it, update pootle, doing the translation on >>>> Pootle (to speed up and simplify the process) and finally merge it back >>>> in svn. >>>> >>> >>> I thunk the proposed solution is good and fulfill the requirements. Can >>> we make a screenshot with the warning box and the English strings for >>> review? >>> >> >> Yuanlin's original first post in this mail thread contains the dialog >> snapshot url at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78482. > > ok thanks, I have overseen this. I have 2 questions: > > 1. dialog title shows "Fatal Error", is it really a Fatal Error? I don't > think so, we detect a running instance and close the application or > better don't continue to start. I think it's more a warning, isn't it? > > 2. in case of error I think we have a better error icon, in case of a > warning the used icon is ok from my pov. > > Juergen > > >> >>> In general I would support the proposed solution with a clear +1 to move >>> forward immediately. >>> >>> Juergen >>> >>> >>>> Juergen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> zhangjf >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Jürgen Schmidt >>>>> <jogischm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> sorry for my top posting but I think this is very urgent and important. >>>>>> When we want to integrate this in 3.4.1 we have to do it immediately, >>>>>> means by the end of this week. >>>>>> >>>>>> The warning messages have to translated!!! >>>>>> >>>>>> Any opinions >>>>>> >>>>>> Juergen >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/27/12 11:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/27/12 3:23 AM, Lin Yuan wrote: >>>>>>>> Currently in AOO, only part of the data in user profile is locked and >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> not access by mutiple instances. So as tested on Windows Server 2008, >>>>>>>> AOO >>>>>>>> will crash in such situation. The patch is not to really support one >>>>>>>> user >>>>>>>> to launch multiple instances on mutiple sessions case. According to the >>>>>>>> suggestion in Windows 8 Certification below: >>>>>>>> *Note*: If an app does not support multiple user sessions or remote >>>>>>>> access, >>>>>>>> it must clearly state this when launched from this kind of session. >>>>>>>> With the patch, AOO will popup a warning dialog and exit in this case. >>>>>>>> So >>>>>>>> it will still not support mutiple user sessions for one user but the >>>>>>>> UX is >>>>>>>> more frendly than the current crash issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we have to define fast if we want include it for 3.4.1 or not. It will >>>>>>> require some translation effort that we have to organize in time (e.g. >>>>>>> updating Pootle etc.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Juergen >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Lin Yuan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2012/6/27 Joost Andrae <joost.and...@gmx.de> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Rob, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> but in a Windows Terminal Server session you have user profiles for >>>>>>>>>>> each >>>>>>>>>>> user. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This patch is for if you connect with Terminal Services twice using >>>>>>>>>> the same user account. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I just wanted to make sure that there is no real problem to get >>>>>>>>> OpenOffice >>>>>>>>> configured so it can be used within a multi user environment (MS TS, >>>>>>>>> Citrix, Sun SGD, or UNIX profiles). If the same user connects a >>>>>>>>> second time >>>>>>>>> then there might be a locking problem with his profile data. If you >>>>>>>>> want to >>>>>>>>> fix this then it's OK but in my opinion it's not really needed because >>>>>>>>> usually it should be prevented that one user accesses the same user >>>>>>>>> profile >>>>>>>>> from another terminal (RDP, X11) session. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just my two € Cents, Joost >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > >
