Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
Am Samstag, den 22.11.2008, 11:04 +0100 schrieb Jens Seidel: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:24:51PM +0100, Simon Paillard wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:52:05AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > > Currently the release notes are here: > > > svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/branches/release-notes/lenny > > > Shall we move them to > > > svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes > > > first? > > > > No need, Matt initiated the local copy with > > branches/releases-notes/lenny. > > Right. Nevertheless one checks normally only the trunk version out. I think > it would be a good idea to switch to trunk as soon as working on a new > release starts. This simplifies contribution a lot. Erm, am I getting something wrong here? We _do_ want a checkout of the release-notes fro lenny. So using branches/release-notes/lenny for a checkout for the lenny release notes seems to be much more natural to me than using trunk/release-notes which will move on to squeeze once lenny is released, which means we would have squeeze release-notes in the place of the lenny release notes on the website? *puzzled* Rhonda signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
On 2008-11-23 16:28, Jens Seidel wrote: > It is, of course. It is also just a suggestion because I know that many other > projects do it this way. OK, please remind me post-lenny :~) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 02:13:10PM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > On 2008-11-22 16:55, Jens Seidel wrote: > > Trust me that a single PO file for each language is not more difficult. > > The opposite is true: Since two different files could share strings they > > need currently to be translated multiple times. > > True. > > > If other people do not agree there is no need to change it. But dealing with > > a single file is just easier. > > Is it OK for you, if we change this post-release? Just to not > confuse the translators in the middle of the process :~) It is, of course. It is also just a suggestion because I know that many other projects do it this way. It allows you also to rename English DocBook files or to rearrange these without bothering PO based translations. Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
On 2008-11-22 16:55, Jens Seidel wrote: > Trust me that a single PO file for each language is not more difficult. > The opposite is true: Since two different files could share strings they > need currently to be translated multiple times. True. > If other people do not agree there is no need to change it. But dealing with > a single file is just easier. Is it OK for you, if we change this post-release? Just to not confuse the translators in the middle of the process :~) > The old Makefile displayed an error in this case ... I hope, that the Makefile is OK now in that respect. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:55:48AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > On 2008-11-22 11:04, Jens Seidel wrote: > > Right. Nevertheless one checks normally only the trunk version out. I think > > it would be a good idea to switch to trunk as soon as working on a new > > release starts. This simplifies contribution a lot. > > Yes, I agree. The branch was meant temporarily. The current stable version can later be moved to a branch to save it's state. > > * Currently the suffix .dbk is used for DocBook/XML files. Is this a usual > >one? Other documents I know use .xml which I prefer. (That's only a minor > >issue but once the code is moved to trunk one can fix this as well.) > > I very strongly prefer .dbk over .xml. XML is very generic > (everything is XML nowadays, right? gnumeric, dia, abiword, ...) OK. > > * Currently multiple PO files are used. One for each English document. s/document/file/ > >I think a single PO file is much preffered. > > OK, I have to check, how to handle this. Currently, it makes the > build process a little bit easier (and more aligned with the > languages, where po is not used on request of the translators) Trust me that a single PO file for each language is not more difficult. The opposite is true: Since two different files could share strings they need currently to be translated multiple times. > and it allows translators to easily share their work without > having to merge later. Partly. How to share 5 files with 10 translators :-? > But we can change this, if you prefer. If other people do not agree there is no need to change it. But dealing with a single file is just easier. > > * In my older build I still found the strange filename > > en/release-notes..pdf. > >Nobody noticed it yet? This will clearly make trouble once we link to > > this > >file from the website. Maybe it is accessible via language code "" or > > ".". > > This happens, if the "architecture" variable is not set during > the make run. I will change the Makefile, that this does not > happen anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience. The old Makefile displayed an error in this case ... Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
On 2008-11-22 11:04, Jens Seidel wrote: > Right. Nevertheless one checks normally only the trunk version out. I think > it would be a good idea to switch to trunk as soon as working on a new > release starts. This simplifies contribution a lot. Yes, I agree. The branch was meant temporarily. > * Currently the suffix .dbk is used for DocBook/XML files. Is this a usual >one? Other documents I know use .xml which I prefer. (That's only a minor >issue but once the code is moved to trunk one can fix this as well.) I very strongly prefer .dbk over .xml. XML is very generic (everything is XML nowadays, right? gnumeric, dia, abiword, ...) E.g. I have configured my Emacs nxml-mode to automatically use the DocBook RNG schema for .dbk files. I can accept other extensions (.docbook or whatever you like, but please not a generic one like .xml). > * Currently multiple PO files are used. One for each English document. >I think a single PO file is much preffered. OK, I have to check, how to handle this. Currently, it makes the build process a little bit easier (and more aligned with the languages, where po is not used on request of the translators) and it allows translators to easily share their work without having to merge later. But we can change this, if you prefer. > * In my older build I still found the strange filename en/release-notes..pdf. >Nobody noticed it yet? This will clearly make trouble once we link to this >file from the website. Maybe it is accessible via language code "" or ".". This happens, if the "architecture" variable is not set during the make run. I will change the Makefile, that this does not happen anymore. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:24:51PM +0100, Simon Paillard wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:52:05AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > Currently the release notes are here: > > svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/branches/release-notes/lenny > > Shall we move them to > > svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes > > first? > > No need, Matt initiated the local copy with > branches/releases-notes/lenny. Right. Nevertheless one checks normally only the trunk version out. I think it would be a good idea to switch to trunk as soon as working on a new release starts. This simplifies contribution a lot. A few further notes: * Currently the suffix .dbk is used for DocBook/XML files. Is this a usual one? Other documents I know use .xml which I prefer. (That's only a minor issue but once the code is moved to trunk one can fix this as well.) * Currently multiple PO files are used. One for each English document. I think a single PO file is much preffered. * In my older build I still found the strange filename en/release-notes..pdf. Nobody noticed it yet? This will clearly make trouble once we link to this file from the website. Maybe it is accessible via language code "" or ".". PS: Thanks for the great work on the Release Notes! Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
On 2008-11-21 23:24, Simon Paillard wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:52:05AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > > Furthermore, two (easy) backports are needed, if we build on > > etch: dblatex and xmlroff from lenny. > > Will request it to DSA. Luk uploaded the two backports some hours ago. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 08:52:05AM +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > as suggested by Frans Pop, I would like to put the new > release-notes on www.debian.org ASAP. Currently the release > notes are here: > svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/branches/release-notes/lenny > Shall we move them to > svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes > first? No need, Matt initiated the local copy with branches/releases-notes/lenny. > They should be updated at least once/twice a day. Will be done at each website build, every 4 hours. > Furthermore, two (easy) backports are needed, if we build on > etch: dblatex and xmlroff from lenny. > > TIA. Will request it to DSA. -- Simon Paillard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Putting lenny release notes on www ASAP?
Hi, as suggested by Frans Pop, I would like to put the new release-notes on www.debian.org ASAP. Currently the release notes are here: svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/branches/release-notes/lenny Shall we move them to svn://svn.debian.org/svn/ddp/manuals/trunk/release-notes first? They should be updated at least once/twice a day. Furthermore, two (easy) backports are needed, if we build on etch: dblatex and xmlroff from lenny. TIA. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
