Hojtsy Gabor wrote:
> > No. One revision is not enough. We need the revision history and that
> > should no be in the documentation. Your way is also possible, but to what
> > revision?
>
> How is the revision history is useful?? Why a simple revision
> number is not enough? OK, lets draw a table:
>
> +--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
> | English mysql.xml history | Some other lang. mysql.xml history |
> +--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
> | 1.2 | |
> | 1.3 | |
> | 1.4 | Started to translate this revision *|
> | 1.5 | |
> | 1.6 | |
> | 1.7 | |
> | 1.8 | Finished with translation of 1.4 **|
> | | |
> . .
> . .
> Some months passed . .
> . .
> | 14.2 | Update needed ***|
> | | Easily updated |
> +--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
>
> So see the points:
>
> * Here the translator need to "write down" somewhere that he/she
> started the translation with the 1.4 Revision of the en file.
> Now this can be accomplished by lookin inside the CVS dir, and
> try to find the file, and copy out the revision number. BUT:
> Jeroen added the $Revision tag, so there is no need to look into
> the CVS dir, as the Revision is in the file.
>
> At this stage the translator people copies the file to another
> place, or committing partial translations. If committing partial
> translations, he can mention in a comment in the Translators file,
> that he is working on it, but he can even add a comment to the
> top of the file, that he "reserved" the file.
>
> ** At this stage (or with the first commit if it happened in the
> previous stage) the translator can add a comment to the file,
> containing the Revision number of the en file named the same in
> the doctree.
>
> *** Some months passed, the file needs some updating, and the
> new (or the old) translator looks into the file, finds the exact
> en Revision, makes a diff with that en Revision, and the actual
> en Revision and gets the diff what needs to be updated/translated.
>
> I think both the $Revision tag and the comment at the begining of
> the file is useful, and helps much to save time. At least I try
> to keep the hu tree with that structure, exept that all the "meta
> information" about files are stored in the hu Translators file.
A bit long, but +1.
You're right, the "meta information" is not necessary (I've just copied
it from nl/language/basic-syntax.xml :) Maybe we can agree upon a
common style (esp. when we should have common script)?
Cu,
Thomas
