On 06/10/2007, Hannes Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/6/07, Nuno Lopes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't like this idea because the revision doesn't get bumped > > automatically. I think there'll be more problems that the little efforth of > > the translators to bump a no-op revision. > > Is your time more worth than the time of 29 translators combined? > Selfish prick! :) > > Bumping it automatically is the problem, not the solution.
I don't think Nuno's message implies that the editor's time is somehow more important than translators' time (tacitly or otherwise). I think I share his point of view, which is not to flat-out refuse the new system proposed, for whatever reason, but to stop for a moment and think how it would work in reality before it's implemented. By the way, it's nice to have proposals like this one; much is being done lately to improve things and that's really great, so thanks Hannes, Philip and everyone else :). Back to the matter at hand, I handle, for example, a reasonable amount of translations in the ES tree (1000+ at the moment), and while it's a bit too much to keep up with sometimes, I wouldn't say that my time is being wasted or something like that just because 1, or 10, or 100 documents introduced typo fixes that don't matter to me in the last commit. I personally find that being as sure as I can that my translations are really in sync and correct with the latest EN versions is more important that the time I think I would save by this new system. I completely understand the concern of not incrementing the revision numbers automatically. For example, the routine I follow when I update a translation starts with updating the revision number. I've done this *a lot*. Now, you would think that my mind would make me follow this step automatically every time, but still there are cases where after updating a group of translations, I notice that I didn't update the revision number in one or more of them. Now, this is just my experience as a translator. Surely this would not be exactly the same for editors. Perhaps the act of editing the EN documents is different from updating translations and the possibility for missing the number update is lower for editors, I don't know, but we are all humans, and sometimes we err... Would I welcome the chance of not having to update translations when only irrelevant changes have been made? Absolutely, but only if I know for sure that my documents are really up-to-date and there's no possibility for an important change being introduced that I never knew about. So, my conclusion would be, can we think about this a little more? Perhaps having some sort of pre-commit hook that lets the editor choose which documents should not imply a revision increment, and always incrementing the revision number by default, unless the editor explicitly states otherwise? Thanks, Leonardo
