On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Egon Schmid wrote:
> From: Hojtsy Gabor
>
> > Hope this helps to start a discussion about the usefullness
> > of this revision comment syntax...
>
> It may be working in the hu tree, there is only one maintainer :)
> This would not work in the German manual, because we have many
> maintainers and not every maintainer is active. So the only solution
> to this dilemma is, every translator have to lookup the changes
> (cvs.php.net) in the en tree back to the time the translation was
> modified.
I see a picture forming here. I think I remember at least Jeroen, Derick
and Damien strongly supporting Gobas idea. And all these translations are
maintained by a very small team, in Damiens case really just one.
So it seems that what works for and helps one translation team may be
completely useless for another. Although I think this could apply also to
different persons within a team.
I know that Egon won't change his mind, because he finds revision numbers
and comments totally useless. I also know that Goba won't change his mind,
because he finds the exactly same things extremely useful. And if I would
start a Finnish translation, I too would find them useful, so I side with
Goba in this.
Could we try to come to a solution that would let anyone to work the way
the find the easiest?
So, my two points:
- Are the revision numbers and comment actually harmful some way? I don't
think so.
- Are these different ways of working mutually exclusive? At least they
shouldn't be. That revcheck script could even be used to update the
existing entries and create new ones in Translators file based on the
information found in comments (unless it already does it...).
Let's find a way that allows those who want to use revision comments to do
it, but doesn't force it on those ones who think it to be totally useless.
> I say it again, revision numbers and comments are useless for every
> translation. All information you need is in http://cvs.php.net/ -->
> phpdoc -->[en|de|hu ...]. There have been discussions to split every
> file in files which contain only one function description. But if we
> can do this we should reorganize the function reference first. The
> next days Hartmut will be back. The Linux Beer Hike 2001 in Belgium
> is over.
I'm actually trying to write the first draft of the new layout now. I hope
this discussion won't get so heated that it takes all my time...
-- Jouni
