On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 15:19, G. T. Stresen-Reuter<tedmaster...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Philip Olson wrote: > >>> >>> How are CVS Revision numbers used today? The best feature of po is that >>> translation text is marked as 'fuzzy' when the main text is changed. If we >>> could do the same with our docbook translation files whenever the en file is >>> committed then we have the same benefits imo. I'm wondering if CVS Revision >>> numbers could be replaced by a 'fuzzy' markup tag...? >> >> When a translator updates a translation (a file), they write which CVS >> Revision in EN it's synced to. So, later when the EN version is updated we >> then know that the translated is outdated. And all of our translation tools >> rely on the incremental nature of CVS revision numbers. >> > > A couple of options.... > > Create an md5 hash on the version you are translating and use that to > "uniquely" identify it. If the EN version is modified by even a single > space, the hash will change and you'll know the files are out of sync. What > you won't know is just how far out of sync (but does that really matter?)
That will be the same as using the SVN revision numbers. The only difference between using the CVS Revision numbers (as we do today) vs using the SVN revision numbers is you cannot see exactly how outofdate the translation simply by looking at the Revision number itself. Maybe that is after all useless feature? -Hannes
