lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: FW: two patches


From: John Mandereau
Subject: Re: FW: two patches
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 19:11:53 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320)

Carl D. Sorensen a écrit :
Mark,

I appreciate your good work on these patches.

So do I :-)


2) I'm not sure how to handle patches to translated documents.  I know that
the translations need to follow a particular commit of the english docs.  If
the change in the translated documents reflects a change in the english
documents, the committish needs to change in the source file, I think.  I'm
not sure exactly how to evaluate the changes you've proposed, and what the
proper means of handling them is.  Translators, please speak up here.  Note
that if we had separate commits for each language, it would be easier for a
translator to review.

There is a specific policy on po/ (not Documentation/po), explained in either the CG or po/README: lilypond.pot may be updated only through "make po-replace", which is obvisouly not the case in this patch, as the POT creation date isn't changed, and every change to *.po files must come from the Free Translation Project unless I give explicit permission to do otherwise (which I should only do on advice from the FTP team). In short, I don't accept changes to files in po/ in this patch.

Typos in translated Texinfo documentation may be applied without asking prior permission. I may have a look at simplifying the committishes update in case the translation was previsouly up to date, but there is much more urgent and important work to do first.


3) When I look at the tranlsated patches, I get funny characters in my
output.  I'm not sure if my email program has mangled things or not.  Of
course, I could build the docs and see, but I don't read german, so I'd have
no idea if it were correct or not.
The encoding of the patch looks correct.


I'd like to recommend that patches to translated documents be approved by
the primary translator for that language.  Does this seem reasonable?

This is generally reasonable, but this is excessive for simple typos.

Best,
John




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]