[l10n-dev] Last l10n fixes for OOo 3.1 release
Dear All, this is a reminder that today COB is the deadline to submit the last l10n fixes. If you have any please do submit an issue, category l10n and assign it to ihi pointing to the sdf files containing the fixes. Please note that we can accept only fixes that is to say diff files - not complete sdf files to be imported. Also make sure to run gsi check before deliverying - even if the file is a small one. For Pootle users: we will be delivering the diffs to ihi for all languages hosted on Pootle on sunvirtuallab. Thanks, Rafaella - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
[l10n-dev] L10n process thought (another issue)
Hi What I miss also are the keyID builds. I can't stress how a keyID build was important to me when I got one before 3.0 release, in time. It allowed me to fix numerous mistakes and improved much the acuracy and quality of 3.0. The one I have is aging by now. KeyIDs are important in this process. Cheers -- Olivier Hallot Scinergy Consulting Tel (021) 2224-3224, (021) 8822-8812 Rio de Janeiro, Brasil http://www.scinergy.com.br OpenOffice.org L10N project leader for Brazil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] l10n fixes and integration process
Hi Rafaella, all, Rafaella Braconi wrote: > Hi Sophie, > > thank you for this email with great feedback and thoughts. Please see my > comments below: > > On 02/28/09 13:29, sophie wrote: >> Hi Rafaella, Ivo, all >> >> I would like to know how the integration of our changes on Pootle will >> be done. Just to understand and try to figure if we could have a better >> process. >> > The integration of translated files is the same no matter if > translations are carried out in Pootle or in SDF files directly. As you > know we deliver the translations to release engineerings accoring to the > release map and translation schedule (taking into account possible > changes to the schedule which are discussed in the release meetings). Ok, this is clear for me now :) >> Last time for the 3.0 changes I've done in time in the cws for the UI >> were not integrated, see this issues for example: >> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=91864 >> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=91863 >> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=91847 >> > As far as I can see in the above issues, the changes have been carries > out in Pootle, but has Ivo or Vladimir got the strings with the changes? > As far as I can see they did not get notified. I send a mail for Ivo on the list, but he mays have missed it, that was for cws localisation30 and didn't get through localisation31. > That means that after the translation delivery deadline has passed and > you want to provide some additional fixes, the changes have to be be > integrated in the CWS. How: > submit an issue (as you did) and assign it to Aijin, and cc: fma, vg and > ihi asking to have the fixes integrated. ok, I miss that part. I think that I will write a FAQ for those very important parts that can be forgot from one localization round to another. Do you think it could be useful ? Something like - Do I submit a complete .sdf - To whom do I assign the issue - when do I open an issue - where is gsicheck - is it possible to gsicheck on Pootle - etc. > >> And I've to wait since August 08 to see the correction in March or April >> 09... >> So what would be the best for the l10n teams to make sure the >> corrections are integrated and for the integration team to have less >> hurdle and missing risks, considering the short time and the emergency >> of our fixes: >> >> - work only on a clean .sdf file (the complete one we have on the issue >> is not clean as some corrections have been integrated after gsicheck) >> and provide the corrections via a .sdf containing the corrections only >> >> - work only on Pootle (but as seen above some corrections are left >> apart) so there is may be an integration issue to solve here >> >> - work on .po files provided through an issue (we did that at the very >> begining if I remember well >> >> - ? >> >> Currently the process I use is to correct first the .po files, then >> upload them in Pootle, then correct the .sdf file, then create a new >> .sdf file, not to mention that I've not yet filled issues to track the >> changes and see if they are fixed in the master. It's a lot of >> duplicated work and I'm sure that we can enhance that way of work for >> all teams implied in the process. >> > Yes, sure. The current process is far from perfect and I'm thankful for > any idea that can help us simplifying it :-) > Just 3 ideas that come into my mind are: > > 1) the sdf file that needs to be corrected is the sdf file which results > out of the gsi check. In order not to have to fix those errors both in > pootle and in the sdf, I would encourage all teams to use the > verification checks in Pootle. And I am sure that we can ask to > customize these checks... ok. However under the Chek option in Pootle there is a lot of check that can be made, and some are shown as errors however it's language dependent. What are the most important? > Advantage: by using sdf verification checks in Pootle, translators would > avoid to fix gsi check errors in sdf files. ok > 2) from now on we will be delivering to release engineering diffs files > only via web interface. That means that the verification of translation > integration both in case of major handoffs or later l10n fixes could be > done by using these diffs without the need of submitting lots of l10n > issues. > Advantage: sdf diff files can be used to check if latest translations or > corrections have been delivered and integrated on CWS correctly. ok > 3) l10n fixes will be delivered by the l10n fixes deadline without prior > request to release engineering > Advantage: no additional request/issue need to be submitted to deliver > l10n fixes. However, please not that anything after the last l10n fixes > delivery will not be included and that for anything that needs our > attention an issue still needs to be submitted. ok, this is more simple like that. > > Would the 3 above points help reducing duplication? Yes, thank you! Kind regards Sophie
Re: [l10n-dev] Last l10n fixes for OOo 3.1 release
Scrive Rafaella Braconi : [cut] > For Pootle users: we will be delivering the diffs to ihi for all > languages hosted on Pootle on sunvirtuallab. [cut] Just to be sure... That means we do not have to do nothing, right? Thanks. Paolo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] L10n process thoughts
Hi Jörg, Jörg Jahnke wrote: > Hi Sophie, > > sophie schrieb: >> Hi all, >> >> Further thinking near to the end of this round for 3.1, I would like to >> discuss possibilities of changes in the localization process. I'm not >> aware of the technical part with cws, so I may tell stupidities, and >> forgive me for that, but at least, I want to try :) >> >> If I question EIS, I found 7 cws containing UI and Help changes for 3.2, >> only one is yet nominated, none integrated. >> >> Won't it be possible to get an extraction of the strings every 3 of 4 >> snapshots and get them merged in Pootle then makes cws of them. > > You mean extraction of strings from "nominated" CWSs? That would be > possible. But you would normally only gain a few days that the CWS needs > to switch from "nominated" to "integrated". Currently we have a special > situation with a larger backlog of CWS, so that the time between these > two states is a bit higher. ok, I thought that for new functionalities it will take more time. > >> Make those cws build by buildbots and merge those small cws in a final >> one called localizationxx? > > Ivo is working on a semi-automated process to build l10n CWSs, so that > such CWSs might be created more often than at the time. Btw., for this > goal it is not necessary to put data into Pootle from CWSs that are not > yet nominated. Thanks to Ivo :) I've read your second mail about Integrated instead of Nominated, why isn't it necessary, the cws won't content further changes? > >> >> Discussing with Andre he told me about that rsync of the cws may cause >> issues and integration of Pootle changes in the cws may be problematic >> also. >> The goal I think we all like to get at would be to have more time for >> translation and get aware of irrelevant parts or errors earlier, more >> time to test smaller translations, and may be proceed in smaller >> integration steps where we can check for translation from language packs >> delivered by buildbots. > > Agreed. This is exactly why Ivo, for quite some time now, is working on > the aforementioned process improvements. ok, thanks again Ivo. Kind regards Sophie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] New cws localisation35 builds are uploading
Hi, there are good and bad news about those missing strings Andras Timar schrieb: It does not contain 5 Hungarian (+ many more language) translations for sd\source\ui\app\popup.src RID_TASKPANE_CURRENT_MASTERPAGESSELECTOR_POPUP SID_TP_APPLY_TO_ALL_SLIDES SID_TP_APPLY_TO_SELECTED_SLIDES SID_TP_SHOW_LARGE_PREVIEW SID_TP_SHOW_SMALL_PREVIEW RID_TASKPANE_LAYOUTMENU_POPUP SID_INSERTPAGE_LAYOUT_MENU the bad news: Those strings where simply not part of the pootle file we received > RID_TASKPANE_CURRENT_MASTERPAGESSELECTOR_POPUP > SID_TP_APPLY_TO_ALL_SLIDES > SID_TP_APPLY_TO_SELECTED_SLIDES > SID_TP_SHOW_LARGE_PREVIEW > SID_TP_SHOW_SMALL_PREVIEW http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=98841 ( hu sdf file ) but they are part of the DEV300_m40: http://openoffice.mirrors.tds.net/pub/openoffice/extended/ooomisc/sdf/DEV300_m40_2009-01-26_18-41-14.sdf.bz2: sd source\ui\app\popup.src 0 menuitem RID_TASKPANE_CURRENT_MASTERPAGESSELECTOR_POPUP SID_TP_APPLY_TO_ALL_SLIDES SID_TP_APPLY_TO_ALL_SLIDES 0 en-US ~Apply to All Slides sd source\ui\app\popup.src 0 menuitem RID_TASKPANE_CURRENT_MASTERPAGESSELECTOR_POPUP SID_TP_APPLY_TO_SELECTED_SLIDES SID_TP_APPLY_TO_SELECTED_SLIDES 0 en-US Apply to ~Selected Slide sd source\ui\app\popup.src 0 menuitem RID_TASKPANE_CURRENT_MASTERPAGESSELECTOR_POPUP SID_TP_SHOW_LARGE_PREVIEW SID_TP_SHOW_LARGE_PREVIEW 0 en-US Show ~Large Preview sd source\ui\app\popup.src 0 menuitem RID_TASKPANE_CURRENT_MASTERPAGESSELECTOR_POPUP SID_TP_SHOW_SMALL_PREVIEW SID_TP_SHOW_SMALL_PREVIEW 0 en-US Show S~mall Preview > RID_TASKPANE_LAYOUTMENU_POPUP > SID_INSERTPAGE_LAYOUT_MENU the helpid changed and our database did not update that change, thus the strings did not matched. the good news: > RID_TASKPANE_CURRENT_MASTERPAGESSELECTOR_POPUP we can just reuse the same strings that are part of RID_TASKPANE_MASTERPAGESSELECTOR_POPUP ( they are just copied ) > RID_TASKPANE_LAYOUTMENU_POPUP > SID_INSERTPAGE_LAYOUT_MENU remerge those string so all in all we have all strings here, all will be fixed. But thanks again for pointing out this error. Cheers, Ivo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
[l10n-dev] OOo langpacks using with StarOffice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi OpenOffice.org Fans, Is it possible to apply OOo langpackes to StarOffice? How Romanian translation is complete? Best regards, KAMI -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmuevsACgkQRR9zu0ZB/GkKAQCfSfSlRTyzqX1Y+r5ZYWYW3SrP 6P4Ani4yqtMTeOtHjjoPP6h2G/H9m/c5 =k2Yk -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] New cws localisation35 builds are uploading
Hi all, MAV made another string change in the cws localization35 issue 99855 he changed all strings including the translation ( 2008 -> 2009 ) Cheers, Ivo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] L10n process thought (another issue)
Hi Olivier, I want make a keyid build as soon as the localization35 cws is integrated, I hope this is not too late then Cheers, Ivo Olivier Hallot schrieb: Hi What I miss also are the keyID builds. I can't stress how a keyID build was important to me when I got one before 3.0 release, in time. It allowed me to fix numerous mistakes and improved much the acuracy and quality of 3.0. The one I have is aging by now. KeyIDs are important in this process. Cheers - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] Last l10n fixes for OOo 3.1 release
On 04.03.09 13:38, Paolo Pozzan wrote: Scrive Rafaella Braconi : [cut] For Pootle users: we will be delivering the diffs to ihi for all languages hosted on Pootle on sunvirtuallab. [cut] Just to be sure... That means we do not have to do nothing, right? Correct. However, we will need you to verify the integration of the latest fixes in the release candidate builds Thanks, Rafaella
Re: [l10n-dev] l10n fixes and integration process
Hi Sophie, ok, I miss that part. I think that I will write a FAQ for those very important parts that can be forgot from one localization round to another. Do you think it could be useful ? Something like - Do I submit a complete .sdf - To whom do I assign the issue - when do I open an issue - where is gsicheck - is it possible to gsicheck on Pootle - etc. well, we do have already wikis such as http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Translation_for_3.1 where you can find information on how to deliver sdf, where to find gsicheck and a checklist: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/NLC:ReleaseChecklist Instead of creating a new one, we could add the missing information or even thinking of restructuring the current ones Yes, sure. The current process is far from perfect and I'm thankful for any idea that can help us simplifying it :-) Just 3 ideas that come into my mind are: 1) the sdf file that needs to be corrected is the sdf file which results out of the gsi check. In order not to have to fix those errors both in pootle and in the sdf, I would encourage all teams to use the verification checks in Pootle. And I am sure that we can ask to customize these checks... ok. However under the Chek option in Pootle there is a lot of check that can be made, and some are shown as errors however it's language dependent. What are the most important? the important verification checks are currently reported in the Pootle User Guide: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Pootle_User_Guide#Verification_checks Thanks, Rafaella
Re: [l10n-dev] l10n fixes and integration process
Hi Rafaella, Rafaella Braconi wrote: > Hi Sophie, >> >> ok, I miss that part. I think that I will write a FAQ for those very >> important parts that can be forgot from one localization round to >> another. Do you think it could be useful ? Something like >> - Do I submit a complete .sdf >> - To whom do I assign the issue >> - when do I open an issue >> - where is gsicheck >> - is it possible to gsicheck on Pootle >> - etc. >> > well, we do have already wikis such as > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Translation_for_3.1 > where you can find information on how to deliver sdf, where to find > gsicheck > > and a checklist: > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/NLC:ReleaseChecklist > > Instead of creating a new one, we could add the missing information or > even thinking of restructuring the current ones Yes, you're right there is already all the needed information. I guess I need to put some reminders on my own list ;) >>> Yes, sure. The current process is far from perfect and I'm thankful for >>> any idea that can help us simplifying it :-) >>> Just 3 ideas that come into my mind are: >>> >>> 1) the sdf file that needs to be corrected is the sdf file which results >>> out of the gsi check. In order not to have to fix those errors both in >>> pootle and in the sdf, I would encourage all teams to use the >>> verification checks in Pootle. And I am sure that we can ask to >>> customize these checks... >>> >> >> ok. However under the Chek option in Pootle there is a lot of check that >> can be made, and some are shown as errors however it's language >> dependent. What are the most important? >> > the important verification checks are currently reported in the Pootle > User Guide: > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Pootle_User_Guide#Verification_checks Thank you, I missed also this list it seems. Kind regards Sophie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] L10n process thoughts
Hi Sophie, sophie schrieb: Make those cws build by buildbots and merge those small cws in a final one called localizationxx? Ivo is working on a semi-automated process to build l10n CWSs, so that such CWSs might be created more often than at the time. Btw., for this goal it is not necessary to put data into Pootle from CWSs that are not yet nominated. Thanks to Ivo :) I've read your second mail about Integrated instead of Nominated, why isn't it necessary, the cws won't content further changes? What I meant is that for the semi-automatic process of creating l10n CWSs, which Ivo is working on, it is sufficient to work with the integrated strings just as we do now. The picture is that news string (more or less) continuously get into the code with every integrated CWS. At the same time the strings from the integrated CWSs get imported into Pootle, get translated and automatically get exported onto an ftp server, where the process can grab them and put them onto an l10n CWS. These l10n CWSs get created and integrated more often than now, so that we have less strings per l10n CWS, get earlier feedback for the translation teams about the results of their work and also have less strings to translate with the final l10n CWS for a new major/minor release. For what I described above it is not necessary to work with CWS that are not already integrated i.e. nominated, approved by QA etc. It would be possible but IMHO it would either not help much (in case of nominated CWSs, where the time advantage before integration might not be worth the effort) or might even pose some risks (in case of e.g. not yet approved CWSs, where the strings might change later in the process and we might trigger translations that would need to be corrected later). I hope this clarifies what I meant to say :-). Regards, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] l10n fixes and integration process
Hi Sophie, On 04.03.09 16:58, sophie wrote: Hi Rafaella, Rafaella Braconi wrote: Hi Sophie, ok, I miss that part. I think that I will write a FAQ for those very important parts that can be forgot from one localization round to another. Do you think it could be useful ? Something like - Do I submit a complete .sdf - To whom do I assign the issue - when do I open an issue - where is gsicheck - is it possible to gsicheck on Pootle - etc. well, we do have already wikis such as http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Translation_for_3.1 where you can find information on how to deliver sdf, where to find gsicheck and a checklist: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/NLC:ReleaseChecklist Instead of creating a new one, we could add the missing information or even thinking of restructuring the current ones Yes, you're right there is already all the needed information. I guess I need to put some reminders on my own list ;) Yes, sure. The current process is far from perfect and I'm thankful for any idea that can help us simplifying it :-) Just 3 ideas that come into my mind are: 1) the sdf file that needs to be corrected is the sdf file which results out of the gsi check. In order not to have to fix those errors both in pootle and in the sdf, I would encourage all teams to use the verification checks in Pootle. And I am sure that we can ask to customize these checks... ok. However under the Chek option in Pootle there is a lot of check that can be made, and some are shown as errors however it's language dependent. What are the most important? the important verification checks are currently reported in the Pootle User Guide: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Pootle_User_Guide#Verification_checks Thank you, I missed also this list it seems. It's me to thank you. I think that all will benefit form the good points you raised. Kind Regards, Rafaella
Re: [l10n-dev] L10n process thoughts
Hi Jörg, Jörg Jahnke wrote: > Hi Sophie, > > sophie schrieb: Make those cws build by buildbots and merge those small cws in a final one called localizationxx? >>> Ivo is working on a semi-automated process to build l10n CWSs, so that >>> such CWSs might be created more often than at the time. Btw., for this >>> goal it is not necessary to put data into Pootle from CWSs that are not >>> yet nominated. >> >> Thanks to Ivo :) I've read your second mail about Integrated instead of >> Nominated, why isn't it necessary, the cws won't content further changes? > > What I meant is that for the semi-automatic process of creating l10n > CWSs, which Ivo is working on, it is sufficient to work with the > integrated strings just as we do now. > > The picture is that news string (more or less) continuously get into the > code with every integrated CWS. At the same time the strings from the > integrated CWSs get imported into Pootle, get translated and > automatically get exported onto an ftp server, where the process can > grab them and put them onto an l10n CWS. These l10n CWSs get created and > integrated more often than now, so that we have less strings per l10n > CWS, get earlier feedback for the translation teams about the results of > their work and also have less strings to translate with the final l10n > CWS for a new major/minor release. That would be really great :) > > For what I described above it is not necessary to work with CWS that are > not already integrated i.e. nominated, approved by QA etc. It would be > possible but IMHO it would either not help much (in case of nominated > CWSs, where the time advantage before integration might not be worth the > effort) or might even pose some risks (in case of e.g. not yet approved > CWSs, where the strings might change later in the process and we might > trigger translations that would need to be corrected later). > > I hope this clarifies what I meant to say :-). Yes really, thank you very much, with your help, I understand how it could work :) Kind regards Sophie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
[l10n-dev] changed strings in 310_m4
Sorry, I did my translation branch after m3, because I saw that all changes in m1 and m2 were reverted, so I dont want to check it myself but Pavel said some hours ago: ain: m4 pot uploaded. new MODULE! It is not funny at all. ain - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
Re: [l10n-dev] changed strings in 310_m4
У чет, 05. 03 2009. у 00:25 +0200, Ain Vagula пише: > Sorry, I did my translation branch after m3, because I saw that all > changes in m1 and m2 were reverted, so I dont want to check it myself > but Pavel said some hours ago: > ain: m4 pot uploaded. new MODULE! > It is not funny at all. > > ain > As I can see reportdesign/registry/data/org is now renamed as reportbuilder/registry/data/org moving some PO files around. It is 4 files with 63 messages total. No messages are added or removed. Kind regards, Goran - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@l10n.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@l10n.openoffice.org
