Re: [PossibleSpam] Re: [PossibleSpam] Re: 2.16.1

[David Kastrup]

Francisco Vila <address@hidden> writes:

> 2012/10/23 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>> Well, LilyPond could see a problem in connection with issue 2883.  Not
>> because of a Spanish version of changes.tely but because of outdated
>> syntax in the Spanish version, syntax that just was not present in the
>> English version, and that did not get converted with convert-ly.
>
> Well, the Spanish version in translation branch matches the English
> version in translation branch. Any changes in the original are usually
> announced by our 'make check-translation' script. While I was in
> translation branch, no change was made to the original, and therefore
> no changes were announced. This all comes from the lack of a
> translation branch for master/staging forked at the moment stable was
> forked. If translators are stuck with stable-translation,
> master/staging gets rapidly outdated. I have pushed to staging without
> the safety net.

Uhm, the above was not an accusation, just an explanation of the
circumstances that made it desirable from a technical standpoint to get
some elements of translation into staging already.  It was clear that
there would be a point of time when we would want to switch over, and it
is just that work on issue 2883 rang the bell and said "please start
now".  In a way, that is nice since it saves us from having to make an
arbitrary decision of when to switch.

That you are the only translator hit with changes.tely because you are
the only one who ever worked on a translation of it does not mean that
you are to blame for anything.  I would have fixed this myself, but my
mastery of Spanish is non-existent.  I would not have been sure to leave
the file in a correct state with regard to its contents.

Issue 2883 will require a lot of heavy lifting from our developers and
documenters, and it will also imply changes for users, even though with
a large amount of backward compatibility.  It was planned as a much more
confined change, but it would not have made sense to not actually use
the new possibilities for simplifying things elsewhere.

Again, thanks for your part on the translation side for getting this
change moved into a position where we can tackle it.  It has passed the
review pretty soon, but up to now has failed on the documentation build,
simply because of our decision to not have translators work on two
versions at once.  That decision was quite reasonable, and now it is
becoming reasonable to switch, and I am glad that the translation team
is being remarkably responsive to problems that are in no way their
fault but that can be addressed by them.

Thanks!

-- 
David Kastrup