desc and summary

[Josep Puigdemont]

Hej!

I've seen that two new modules are to be translated (with quite a lot of
strings on them), however, these are not for FC4, are they?

/Josep

[Ronny Buchmann]

On Sunday 15 May 2005 10:22, Josep Puigdemont wrote:
> Hej!
>
> I've seen that two new modules are to be translated (with quite a lot of
> strings on them), however, these are not for FC4, are they?

Seems to be a split up of dist and to be up to date.

But the question remains, is it used in FC4?

[Josep Puigdemont]

El dg 15 de 05 del 2005 a les 12:05 +0200, en/na Ronny Buchmann va
escriure:
> On Sunday 15 May 2005 10:22, Josep Puigdemont wrote:
> > Hej!
> >
> > I've seen that two new modules are to be translated (with quite a lot of
> > strings on them), however, these are not for FC4, are they?
>
> Seems to be a split up of dist and to be up to date.

You're right, it does look like it, but many translations seem to have
been forgotten during the split :( I hope it is not because all strings
are new!
> But the question remains, is it used in FC4?

I really hope not ;-) we put a lot of work on dist, which seems to have
temporarily vanished.
Besides we are in string freeze now, no?

/Josep

[Bernd Groh]

Hi Josep,

please ignore desc and summary for now.

I'm currently in the process of re-organizing specspo, which includes, 
as Ronny has noted, a split of dist.pot into desc.pot and summary.pot. 
As of yet, desc.pot and summary.pot are not to be translated, and the 
translations of dist.pot won't yet be moved. I'm currently doing a live 
testing of the new toolchain keeping the specspo pot up to date at all 
times (desc and summary, that is, dist is still the current module, but 
will soon be replaced by desc and summary), which includes an automatic 
update of desc.pot and summary.pot. If everything is stable, we'll pick 
a date on which we move all translations to the new modules and let dist 
die. From then on forward, the specspo pot modules will be kept up to 
date, and the latest translations will make it into the package.

Cheers,
Bernd

Josep Puigdemont wrote:
> Hej!
>
> I've seen that two new modules are to be translated (with quite a lot of
> strings on them), however, these are not for FC4, are they?
>
> /Josep
>
> --
> Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list

[Keld Jørn Simonsen]

Hej!

Where in the cvs tree will these new modules be placed?
Somewhere in  the specspo tree, or in their own directory?

Will there be an initial language vesion generated by redhat? I assume
that many strings can be copied from the current dist file.

And what are these strings used for, anyway? Which programs use them?

best regards
keld

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 06:57:09AM +1000, Bernd Groh wrote:
> Hi Josep,
>
> please ignore desc and summary for now.
>
> I'm currently in the process of re-organizing specspo, which includes, 
> as Ronny has noted, a split of dist.pot into desc.pot and summary.pot. 
> As of yet, desc.pot and summary.pot are not to be translated, and the 
> translations of dist.pot won't yet be moved. I'm currently doing a live 
> testing of the new toolchain keeping the specspo pot up to date at all 
> times (desc and summary, that is, dist is still the current module, but 
> will soon be replaced by desc and summary), which includes an automatic 
> update of desc.pot and summary.pot. If everything is stable, we'll pick 
> a date on which we move all translations to the new modules and let dist 
> die. From then on forward, the specspo pot modules will be kept up to 
> date, and the latest translations will make it into the package.
>
> Cheers,
> Bernd
>
> Josep Puigdemont wrote:
> > Hej!
> >
> > I've seen that two new modules are to be translated (with quite a lot of
> > strings on them), however, these are not for FC4, are they?
> >
> > /Josep
> >
> > --
> > Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list
>
> --
> Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list

[Bernd Groh]

Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
> Hej!
>
> Where in the cvs tree will these new modules be placed?
> Somewhere in  the specspo tree, or in their own directory?

Within specspo, most likely two sub-directories 'summary' and 'desc', as 
is currently.
> Will there be an initial language vesion generated by redhat? I assume
> that many strings can be copied from the current dist file.

That's the plan. The updates seem to work fine, though there has only 
been one change (to summary.pot) since the process went live. It might 
be good to talk about a good date for the move.
> And what are these strings used for, anyway? Which programs use them?

These are the summaries and descriptions of the packages in the 
distribution. Something you'd see if you, for example, did a `rpm -qi 
<package>`.

We thought we'd split summaries and descriptions, to make the files a 
little smaller, and allow to prioritize between the two.

Regards,
Bernd

[Göran Uddeborg]

Bernd Groh writes:
> We thought we'd split summaries and descriptions, to make the files a 
> little smaller, and allow to prioritize between the two.

There are points in that.  And I want to encourage any attempts to
bring these translations alive again.

But separating description and summary has one disadvantage:
consistency.  When I do the translation, I try to keep these two
messages fit together.  In the current dist file it's very easy; they
typically come immediately after each other.

The dist package IS very large, I'm very well aware of that.  But
maybe splitting it in this way is not ideal.  I don't know what the
infrastructure you are building would allow.  But if possible, it
might be better to divide by group, or maybe just alphabetically by
package name.

Do you other specspo/dist/summary/description translators agree with
me?

[Xavi Conde]

First of all, hello everyone! My name is Xavier and I'm working on the
Catalan team with Josep. We've felt somewhat _lazy_ when translating
specspo, it has been a common issue in our team.

Maybe it would be better to separate GNOME and KDE's summaries and
descriptions, GNU and X's, and the rest of them to be considered as
EXTRAS. I'll priorize the two firsts.

2005/5/17, Göran Uddeborg :
> Bernd Groh writes:
> > We thought we'd split summaries and descriptions, to make the files a
> > little smaller, and allow to prioritize between the two.
>
> There are points in that.  And I want to encourage any attempts to
> bring these translations alive again.
>
> But separating description and summary has one disadvantage:
> consistency.  When I do the translation, I try to keep these two
> messages fit together.  In the current dist file it's very easy; they
> typically come immediately after each other.
>
> The dist package IS very large, I'm very well aware of that.  But
> maybe splitting it in this way is not ideal.  I don't know what the
> infrastructure you are building would allow.  But if possible, it
> might be better to divide by group, or maybe just alphabetically by
> package name.
>
> Do you other specspo/dist/summary/description translators agree with
> me?
>
> --
> Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list

[Bernd Groh]

There is a lot of logic in that, and I did consider it, but I decided 
against it, because it becomes a little too difficult to manage wrt how 
things are currently. Regarding the split of summaries and descriptions, 
at one stage, we even considered removing all descriptions completely, 
and to keep summaries only. That's why I decided to make the 
descriptions a second pot. If we'd attempt any further division, 
bringing specspo to live again, would take a whole lot longer again. For 
now, I'd really prefer to keep it as it is, summary.pot and desc.pot, 
and maybe later down the track, look into splitting specspo according to 
package groups.

Thanks,
Bernd

Xavier Conde Rueda wrote:
> First of all, hello everyone! My name is Xavier and I'm working on the
> Catalan team with Josep. We've felt somewhat _lazy_ when translating
> specspo, it has been a common issue in our team.
>
> Maybe it would be better to separate GNOME and KDE's summaries and
> descriptions, GNU and X's, and the rest of them to be considered as
> EXTRAS. I'll priorize the two firsts.
>
> 2005/5/17, Göran Uddeborg :
> > Bernd Groh writes:
> > > We thought we'd split summaries and descriptions, to make the files a
> > > little smaller, and allow to prioritize between the two.
> >
> > There are points in that.  And I want to encourage any attempts to
> > bring these translations alive again.
> >
> > But separating description and summary has one disadvantage:
> > consistency.  When I do the translation, I try to keep these two
> > messages fit together.  In the current dist file it's very easy; they
> > typically come immediately after each other.
> >
> > The dist package IS very large, I'm very well aware of that.  But
> > maybe splitting it in this way is not ideal.  I don't know what the
> > infrastructure you are building would allow.  But if possible, it
> > might be better to divide by group, or maybe just alphabetically by
> > package name.
> >
> > Do you other specspo/dist/summary/description translators agree with
> > me?
> >
> > --
> > Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list
>
> --
> Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list

[Xavi Conde]

Thanks,

however, I think translation teams could follow this approach as "de
facto", instead of translating alphabetically. With so much strings to
work on, we should priorize on KDE's and GNOME's. So there is no need
to "repackage" a "gnome-specspo.pot" and a "kde-specspo.pot" - just
follow this approach and translate first those strings.

Regards,

--Xavi

2005/5/17, Bernd Groh :
> There is a lot of logic in that, and I did consider it, but I decided
> against it, because it becomes a little too difficult to manage wrt how
> things are currently. Regarding the split of summaries and descriptions,
> at one stage, we even considered removing all descriptions completely,
> and to keep summaries only. That's why I decided to make the
> descriptions a second pot. If we'd attempt any further division,
> bringing specspo to live again, would take a whole lot longer again. For
> now, I'd really prefer to keep it as it is, summary.pot and desc.pot,
> and maybe later down the track, look into splitting specspo according to
> package groups.
>
> Thanks,
> Bernd
>
> Xavier Conde Rueda wrote:
> > First of all, hello everyone! My name is Xavier and I'm working on the
> > Catalan team with Josep. We've felt somewhat _lazy_ when translating
> > specspo, it has been a common issue in our team.
> >
> > Maybe it would be better to separate GNOME and KDE's summaries and
> > descriptions, GNU and X's, and the rest of them to be considered as
> > EXTRAS. I'll priorize the two firsts.
> >
> > 2005/5/17, Göran Uddeborg :
> > > Bernd Groh writes:
> > > > We thought we'd split summaries and descriptions, to make the files a
> > > > little smaller, and allow to prioritize between the two.
> > >
> > > There are points in that.  And I want to encourage any attempts to
> > > bring these translations alive again.
> > >
> > > But separating description and summary has one disadvantage:
> > > consistency.  When I do the translation, I try to keep these two
> > > messages fit together.  In the current dist file it's very easy; they
> > > typically come immediately after each other.
> > >
> > > The dist package IS very large, I'm very well aware of that.  But
> > > maybe splitting it in this way is not ideal.  I don't know what the
> > > infrastructure you are building would allow.  But if possible, it
> > > might be better to divide by group, or maybe just alphabetically by
> > > package name.
> > >
> > > Do you other specspo/dist/summary/description translators agree with
> > > me?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list
> >
> > --
> > Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list
>
> --
> Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list

[Josep Puigdemont]

Hi Bernd!

El dl 16 de 05 del 2005 a les 06:57 +1000, en/na Bernd Groh va escriure:
> Hi Josep,
>
> please ignore desc and summary for now.

Now that's relieving :)

Whenever this is ready and specspo disapears, could you please keep the
same maintainer for summary and desc as it was for specspo? (Sarah,
maybe?)

Thanks!

Nice work!

/Josep
> I'm currently in the process of re-organizing specspo, which includes, 
> as Ronny has noted, a split of dist.pot into desc.pot and summary.pot. 
> As of yet, desc.pot and summary.pot are not to be translated, and the 
> translations of dist.pot won't yet be moved. I'm currently doing a live 
> testing of the new toolchain keeping the specspo pot up to date at all 
> times (desc and summary, that is, dist is still the current module, but 
> will soon be replaced by desc and summary), which includes an automatic 
> update of desc.pot and summary.pot. If everything is stable, we'll pick 
> a date on which we move all translations to the new modules and let dist 
> die. From then on forward, the specspo pot modules will be kept up to 
> date, and the latest translations will make it into the package.
>
> Cheers,
> Bernd
>
> Josep Puigdemont wrote:
> > Hej!
> >
> > I've seen that two new modules are to be translated (with quite a lot of
> > strings on them), however, these are not for FC4, are they?
> >
> > /Josep

[Bernd Groh]

Josep,

Josep Puigdemont wrote:
> Hi Bernd!
>
> El dl 16 de 05 del 2005 a les 06:57 +1000, en/na Bernd Groh va escriure:
> > Hi Josep,
> >
> > please ignore desc and summary for now.
>
> Now that's relieving :)
>
> Whenever this is ready and specspo disapears, could you please keep the
> same maintainer for summary and desc as it was for specspo? (Sarah,
> maybe?)

I'll try to remember it. :)

Cheers,
Bernd
> Thanks!
>
> Nice work!
>
> /Josep
> > I'm currently in the process of re-organizing specspo, which includes, 
> > as Ronny has noted, a split of dist.pot into desc.pot and summary.pot. 
> > As of yet, desc.pot and summary.pot are not to be translated, and the 
> > translations of dist.pot won't yet be moved. I'm currently doing a live 
> > testing of the new toolchain keeping the specspo pot up to date at all 
> > times (desc and summary, that is, dist is still the current module, but 
> > will soon be replaced by desc and summary), which includes an automatic 
> > update of desc.pot and summary.pot. If everything is stable, we'll pick 
> > a date on which we move all translations to the new modules and let dist 
> > die. From then on forward, the specspo pot modules will be kept up to 
> > date, and the latest translations will make it into the package.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bernd
> >
> > Josep Puigdemont wrote:
> > > Hej!
> > >
> > > I've seen that two new modules are to be translated (with quite a lot of
> > > strings on them), however, these are not for FC4, are they?
> > >
> > > /Josep
>
> --
> Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list