Possible error in check_trans.pl
Hello guys and girls (I hope there is ;-), today I founded a strange behavior of purging script, that removes more than 6 months outdated translations. One of my translations (bulgarian/News/index.wml) was purged from the repository, I wondered what happend and browsed the log - what a suprise: revision 1.4 [Select for revision A] [Select for revision B] date: 01 08 2004 10:00; author: peterk Automatic purge of file outdated for six months. revision 1.3 [Select for revision A] [Select for revision B] date: 01 08 2004 05:48; author: djpig Add missing translation header revision 1.2 [Select for revision A] [Select for revision B] date: 10 07 2004 12:46; author: rkrastev sync with v.1.25 revision 1.1 [Select for revision A] [Select for revision B] date: 01 07 2004 23:28; author: kraai Update Bulgarian translation. * As you can see my last update is from 10.07 (and after that there is a fix from djpig - thank you :-), furthermore the file was commited initialy on 1 of july (this year)... I didn't dig into this perl script (I've not time, sorry), but probably there is some kind of bug, as you can see from the cvs log, so it will be usefull to fix this, before more people/translations be affected like like me. Regards: Rumen Krasstev - coordinator of the bulgarian translation team
Re: Possible error in check_trans.pl
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Rumen Krastev wrote: Hello guys and girls (I hope there is ;-), today I founded a strange behavior of purging script, that removes more than 6 months outdated translations. One of my translations (bulgarian/News/index.wml) was purged from the repository, I wondered what happend and browsed the log - what a suprise: revision 1.4 [Select for revision A] [Select for revision B] date: 01 08 2004 10:00; author: peterk Automatic purge of file outdated for six months. v 1.1 is more than 6 months old (see below) revision 1.3 [Select for revision A] [Select for revision B] date: 01 08 2004 05:48; author: djpig Add missing translation header v 1.1 ??! and the previous upload was a sync with v 1.25 ??! revision 1.2 [Select for revision A] [Select for revision B] date: 10 07 2004 12:46; author: rkrastev sync with v.1.25 revision 1.1 [Select for revision A] [Select for revision B] date: 01 07 2004 23:28; author: kraai Update Bulgarian translation. * As you can see my last update is from 10.07 (and after that there is a fix from djpig - thank you :-), furthermore the file was commited initialy on 1 of july (this year)... The translation header should mention the translated English revision, so it should have been 1.25 probably. As English revision 1.1 is more than 6 months old, the file would be completely outdated and as such is removed. You can off course add it again. I didn't dig into this perl script (I've not time, sorry), but probably there is some kind of bug, as you can see from the cvs log, so it will be usefull to fix this, before more people/translations be affected like like me. So, I don't think there is a bug in the script... Cheers Luk
Possible error in check_trans.pl (fwd)
--Forwarded message -- References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Rumen Krastev [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Possible error in check_trans.pl Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 22:56:16 +0300 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The translation header should mention the translated English revision, so it should have been 1.25 probably. As English revision 1.1 is more than 6 months old, the file would be completely outdated and as such is removed. You mean that the script doesn't compare dates of the modifications, instead it reads the header and if the header says i'm v1.1 or there is no such header it decides that this file is outdate? Bizzare :-/ If it works like that, there is a bug for me - definitely. You can off course add it again. Yeap, and what happens when one day this script purge 20 or even more files in different directories? This would decrease the motivation of every translator :-/ So, I don't think there is a bug in the script... But I do Regards: Rumen
Re: Possible error in check_trans.pl
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Rumen Krastev wrote: The translation header should mention the translated English revision, so it should have been 1.25 probably. As English revision 1.1 is more than 6 months old, the file would be completely outdated and as such is removed. You mean that the script doesn't compare dates of the modifications, instead it reads the header and if the header says i'm v1.1 or there is no such header it decides that this file is outdate? Bizzare :-/ If it works like that, there is a bug for me - definitely. No, it compares dates, but in your case djpig added a translation header saying that you translated revision 1.1 and that revision is way older than 6 months so irrespective of how old your translation is, this translation would be very outdated and so it was deleted. The only problem was thus that the revision number was 1.1 instead of 1.25. You can off course add it again. Yeap, and what happens when one day this script purge 20 or even more files in different directories? This would decrease the motivation of every translator :-/ You should add a translation header in every translated file with the right revision number (that of the english page of course). So, I don't think there is a bug in the script... But I do Still?? Cheers Luk
Re: Possible error in check_trans.pl
Luk Claes writes: On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Rumen Krastev wrote: The translation header should mention the translated English revision, so it should have been 1.25 probably. As English revision 1.1 is more than 6 months old, the file would be completely outdated and as such is removed. You mean that the script doesn't compare dates of the modifications, instead it reads the header and if the header says i'm v1.1 or there is no such header it decides that this file is outdate? Bizzare :-/ If it works like that, there is a bug for me - definitely. No, it compares dates, but in your case djpig added a translation header saying that you translated revision 1.1 and that revision is way older than 6 months so irrespective of how old your translation is, this translation would be very outdated and so it was deleted. The only problem was thus that the revision number was 1.1 instead of 1.25. Ahaa, I catch it.. You can off course add it again. Yeap, and what happens when one day this script purge 20 or even more files in different directories? This would decrease the motivation of every translator :-/ You should add a translation header in every translated file with the right revision number (that of the english page of course). Right :-/ So, I don't think there is a bug in the script... But I do Still?? No, I don't... but this destructive behavior of the script can produce many human conflicts :-/ At least it should send mail, about it's intentions, right? Regards Rumen
Re: Possible error in check_trans.pl
Rumen Krastev: No, I don't... but this destructive behavior of the script can produce many human conflicts :-/ At least it should send mail, about it's intentions, I don't like mass-spamming people with autogenerated mail. However, current information about what is happening with the translations can be seen at http://people.debian.org/~peterk/outdated/ I probably should add a note to the website docs about this somewhere, I just haven't got around to yet. Please note that having proper translation-check headers is a *requirement* for all translations on the website (that includes pages where the English version is a translation, it should then refer to the original language and its revision). -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Re: Possible error in check_trans.pl (fwd)
Rumen Krastev: You mean that the script doesn't compare dates of the modifications, instead it reads the header and if the header says i'm v1.1 or there is no such header it decides that this file is outdate? Bizzare :-/ That's exactly what it does, because that's the only proper way to do it. Modification aren't uninteresting. The translation-check header is the only valid data point. Yeap, and what happens when one day this script purge 20 or even more files in different directories? This would decrease the motivation of every translator :-/ It decreases the motivation of our *readers* if they are served with outdated pages. The readers are our top priority. -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
