[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 04:55:14PM +0200, Hojtsy Gábor wrote:
> > >> So we have a $Revision tag in the english file, showing the actual
> > >> english version number. We can have a comment in the translated
> > >> version, about what english version number it corresponds to. This
> > >> way you can do a diff with these two versions, and see what needs
> > >> to be modified/added in the translated file. I think it just
> > >helps much.
> > >> I can't understand what is your problem with this?
> > >
> > >I can´t see your point. The information what have been
> > >modified/added is
> > >in cvs.php.net. A revision tag is IMHO useless.
> >
> > Let's imagine, you start translating mysql.xml. This is not
> > a small file, so you can't complete it in a day. You copy
> > the mysql.xml file yourself to a separate directory, as
> > you probably won't follow the modifications in the mysql.xml
> > file as you translate, because the translation takes weeks.
> > One week later, when you again have time to translate, you can
> > see the $Revision tag in the copied english file, while the
> > one in CVS is newer, so your point of what you are translating
> > would be lost.
>
> We have some translations from May 2000. The only possibility to get this
> translation into sync with the English version is, compare the file
> modification time with the revisions in cvs.php.net till that time and
> make all modifications since that time. One revision tag is IMHO still
> useless.
Exactly that's the the wrong way. If the change in May 2000 was only a typo,
you might get a big hole if you check only the en-changes from that date till
now.
Only a check from the revision in the discussed comment till now will be
complete.
And only if all versions from that comment are updated till a certain
version, the
comment should be changed (meaning not only for a typo).
--Tom
