So.. whats the status on this? Noone cares?
Are we disabling most of the translations (to begin with) and take it
from there?
-Hannes
On Nov 11, 2007 3:13 PM, Hannes Magnusson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2007 5:20 AM, Philip Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > As most of us know, we have many outdated translations... so let's
> > discuss it:
> >
> > A) Critically old files:
> >
> > Many translations contain critically old files that should be either
> > updated or offline. Some ideas that deal with these are:
> >
> > - Have the build system either not build/show them, or insert huge
> > warnings (for users)
> > - Add revcheck[1] tools that list all critically outdated files (for
> > translators)
> > - Better define what it means to be critically old (for all)
>
> Since the "revision element discussion" didn't get us anywhere we have
> no real why of figuring out why files or outdated or determine if a
> file is really critically outdated or not :(
>
>
> > B) File ownership:
> >
> > Translators typically insert maintainer information within each file.
> > If a translator suddenly becomes inactive, these files essentially
> > become unmaintained yet remain owned. I don't know the extent of this
> > problem but can only assume it causes delays. Should we worry about
> > allowing active translators to update any file... especially for
> > critically old files? They (some) do anyways but let's make something
> > official.
>
> This is somewhat related to general crediting documentation writers
> and the changelog discussion we've been talking about (offline).
> I think however the main reason for the "file ownership" is so the
> translators easily check the files they are interested in translating
> and update them if needed without needing to scan the entire tree for
> changes.
>
>
> > D) Outdated translations:
> >
> > We have several translations that haven't [really] been updated for
> > years, and it goes without saying that this is bad for everyone so
> > let's make a plan. Here's one, let's discuss it:
> >
> > 1. Designate the deadest of the dead as INACTIVE_LANGUAGES via
> > phpweb. ~18 of them. This means they won't show up via the select box
> > at php.net, nor be selectable via my.php.
>
> (and the user will not be automagically redirected to the translation,
> even if they send out ACCEPT_LANGUAGE header for that language, and
> the translation is not listed on php.net/docs nor
> php.net/download-docs)
>
> > 2. Write each list (doc-{lang}) asking if anyone out there is
> > listening. If so, discuss the translation.
>
> So if someone is "listening".. then what? Keep the 3year old language
> available?
> I'm willing to bet that its way easier to start from scratch for 99%
> of these translations.
>
>
> > 3. Alter the php.net 404 handler to work with missing languages, so
> > ar/manual/foo.php --> en/manual/foo.php
>
> That shouldn't be a problem, for _missing_ translations, but for
> translations that are in fact online and someone writes a
> php.net/full/path/to/file.php..
>
> > 4. Implement PhD to build active languages for mirrors rsync. Based
> > on INACTIVE_LANGUAGES from phpweb/includes/languages.inc.
> > 5. Implement PhD to build all languages, active and inactive, for
> > docs.php.net.
> > 6. Remove all dead/old/non-phd manuals. For example, kr/manual is
> > from 2004. Currently some translations (even en/ within them) are not
> > being updated/built.
>
> Most of the translations online haven't even been rebuilt using xslt,
> which I find terribly annoying - especially since there is a bunch of
> legacy crap that is in my way and I'd like to remove - and their
> layout is totally different from xslt, then adding phd builds on top
> of that... its impossible to maintain three "almost like
> markup/classes" and expect them all to look alike.
> _We need those 18 translations disabled and phd builds pushed out_
>
> I have no special feelings regarding removing them from phpweb or not.
>
> -Hannes
>
