Re: Release Notes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

01.11.2011, 21:53, "John J. McDonough" <wb8rcr@xxxxxxxx>:
>>  Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:25:33 +0900
>>  From: Misha Shnurapet <shnurapet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   [clip]
>>  31.10.2011, 23:05, "Kévin Raymond" <shaiton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>  I think that you should not include Revision History in your
>>>  statistics, this file is useful, but not really needed to be
>>>  translated (I translated it only in order to get 100% ^^), IMHO of
>>>  course.
>>  I think it'd be better to have a list of contributors rather than a revision history log.
> A list of contributors would be great, but we haven't figured out how to
> do that.  In the past we have tried but have never been able to get it
> right, especially with the translators.  Perhaps the new tx offers some
> options we haven't examined.  For writers, we can check the wiki
> history, git commits and bugzilla, but there tend to be a lot of
> translators that we don't know how to identify.
> As far as the revision history, that is necessary.  However, I also
> question the value of translating it.

There are two possible ways to deal with the list of translators as I see it:
1. to collect the names from the .po file headers, which are filled, AFAIK, automatically by Transifex;
2. to omit this list (just like it is done now), naming the authors only.

Should the revision history be necessary, its module should miss Transifex and it's in the bag.

Best regards,
Misha Shnurapet, Fedora Project Contributor
Email: shnurapet AT, IRC: misha on freenode, GPG: 00217306
docs mailing list
To unsubscribe:

[Home]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Red Hat 9 Bible]     [Fedora Bible]     [Red Hat 9]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]

Powered by Linux