From kwade at redhat.com Sat Feb 4 03:37:03 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:37:03 -0800 Subject: trans freeze slips one week Message-ID: <1139024223.27661.177.camel@erato.phig.org> Because FC5 test3 is slipping one week ... and also because I don't have the new XML files from the Wiki yet ... New trans freeze for test3 relnotes is 6 February 2006, this coming Monday, at Midnight UTC. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Schedule#preview I will send out a status update announcement by 08.00 UTC on Monday (5 Feb.). - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Content Services Fedora Documentation Project http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Sat Feb 4 15:01:00 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:01:00 -0500 Subject: Another question In-Reply-To: <1138432230.3253.4.camel@grafica.3dwebzone.org> References: <1138385813.15336.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1138432230.3253.4.camel@grafica.3dwebzone.org> Message-ID: <1139065261.3188.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 02:10 -0500, Francesco Tombolini wrote: > Il giorno ven, 27/01/2006 alle 10.16 -0800, Paul W. Frields ha scritto: > > Would it be easier for translators if we > > moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.? Comments > > welcome. > > I think it would be more intuitive... than check for comments or tags in > the xml file... I am having some second thoughts about this. The lure of i18n'ing this file just like all others is very strong, but there are some significant problems it creates which weren't apparent to me at first blush. For example, RPM changelogs also come out of this file for our packaging process. Those are normally not translated. This would mean the confusion created by requiring translators *not* to translate certain parts of the new rpm-info-*.xml files would be roughly equal to the situation we had before. Worse, though, it represents a possibility of mismatch in the RPMs, or at least the appearance of mismatch when translations are out of sync with the English versions at packaging time. More discussion is welcome, with an eye toward rolling some docs out the door into Fedora Extras at or near FC5t3 release. Tommy normally catches me when I think up Bad Ideas, so I could be wrong in thinking we need to change course. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com Sun Feb 5 00:37:37 2006 From: Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com (Tommy Reynolds) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:37:37 -0600 Subject: Another question In-Reply-To: <1139065261.3188.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1138385813.15336.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1138432230.3253.4.camel@grafica.3dwebzone.org> <1139065261.3188.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060204183737.9f4daae4.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> Uttered "Paul W. Frields" , spake thus: > > > Would it be easier for translators if we > > > moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.? Comments > > > welcome. > > I think it would be more intuitive... than check for comments or tags in > > the xml file... > I am having some second thoughts about this. > > Tommy normally catches me when I think up Bad Ideas, so I could be > wrong in thinking we need to change course. Busted, again ;-) I would vastly prefer to use a single rpm-info.xml file and have all portions of that be authoritative. Otherwise you are faced with having some rpm-info files be more equal than others, on a stanza-by-stanza basis. Notice in the fdpsh and Makefile.common changes I've just checked in there must be the notion of a "primary language" for a document: the locale of the original, authoritative rpm-info-${LANG}.xml file. After all, not all documents will originate in "en", will they? The complications and accommodations seem to be creeping in. Let's stomp them out. My original vision was that a single rpm-info.xml file would contain ALL the meta-information for a document. There didn't seem to be a way to have a separate ".spec" file for each language (and thus separate RPM's) and that implied that all the changelog activity could be lumped together. BTW, I considered the "%changelog" to not strictly be an RPM or document ChangeLog as such, but to represent more of an event log. Each correction, addition, or packaging event would be recorded there. Just before an RPM package release, a new RPM event would be added thus marking the RPM version and release. No need to synchronize the document versions with the RPM versions unless convention dictated. Not a course change, just a return to sanity. You have now read my $0.02USD. What is yours? We await your pleasure. From mcgiwer at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 01:41:07 2006 From: mcgiwer at gmail.com (Pawel Sadowski) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 02:41:07 +0100 Subject: Release Notes Translation Process Message-ID: <1139103668.3250.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hi, I have a question connected with translating release notes. I want to make a Polish translation of relnotes and I don't particularly know how to do it. I've heard, that now the only right way to translate relnotes is via Wiki. Is it true? I started translating XML files from CVS. Will it possible to translate relnotes like in this way? Cheers, Pawel Sadowski (McGiwer) From stickster at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 16:23:35 2006 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:23:35 -0500 Subject: Another question In-Reply-To: <20060204183737.9f4daae4.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> References: <1138385813.15336.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1138432230.3253.4.camel@grafica.3dwebzone.org> <1139065261.3188.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060204183737.9f4daae4.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> Message-ID: <1139156616.3028.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 18:37 -0600, Tommy Reynolds wrote: > Uttered "Paul W. Frields" , spake thus: > > > > > Would it be easier for translators if we > > > > moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.? Comments > > > > welcome. > > > I think it would be more intuitive... than check for comments or tags in > > > the xml file... > > I am having some second thoughts about this. > > > > Tommy normally catches me when I think up Bad Ideas, so I could be > > wrong in thinking we need to change course. > > Busted, again ;-) > > I would vastly prefer to use a single rpm-info.xml file and have all > portions of that be authoritative. Otherwise you are faced with > having some rpm-info files be more equal than others, on a > stanza-by-stanza basis. This is far more clear than the way I stated my new misgivings. Thanks. > Notice in the fdpsh and Makefile.common > changes I've just checked in there must be the notion of a "primary > language" for a document: the locale of the original, authoritative > rpm-info-${LANG}.xml file. After all, not all documents will > originate in "en", will they? The complications and accommodations > seem to be creeping in. Let's stomp them out. Agreed. One question: why not have an authoritative "rpm-info.xml" file just live in the doc module root? That seems even more intuitive, so translators need not hunt through the other modules or read Makefile stuff to figure out where the rpm-info lives for a specific doc, in the even that it's not "en". Plus it gives the correct impression that it is the One XML that rules over an entire set of translations. Or am I going insane again? > My original vision was that a single rpm-info.xml file would contain > ALL the meta-information for a document. There didn't seem to be a > way to have a separate ".spec" file for each language (and thus > separate RPM's) and that implied that all the changelog activity > could be lumped together. Yes, although it would be possible to do separate "-*.spec" files (with separate "rpm-info-*.xml" files), it would be clumsy, a maintenance nightmare, and ill-advised. Far better to wait for documents to achieve uniformity through complete translations, and only then roll the packages. > BTW, I considered the "%changelog" to not strictly be an RPM or > document ChangeLog as such, but to represent more of an event log. > Each correction, addition, or packaging event would be recorded > there. Just before an RPM package release, a new RPM event would be > added thus marking the RPM version and release. No need to > synchronize the document versions with the RPM versions unless > convention dictated. Right, it would be more of the nature of "We've made some good fixes, they've all been translated into the target languages, time to ship an RPM update." > Not a course change, just a return to sanity. > > You have now read my $0.02USD. What is yours? We await your > pleasure. Yes, if some additional translators (I already heard from one) would confirm that this doesn't burden them -- remembering to put translations in certain elements of the "rpm-info.xml" file -- that would be grand. I will put a little bit of comment fluff in the XSL stylesheets to indicate clearly what to translate. Is there any standardized way for indicating parts of an XML file that should not be translated? Some sort of outboard configuration that is understood by xml2po{,t}? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com Sun Feb 5 16:52:26 2006 From: Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com (Tommy Reynolds) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 10:52:26 -0600 Subject: Another question In-Reply-To: <1139156616.3028.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1138385813.15336.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1138432230.3253.4.camel@grafica.3dwebzone.org> <1139065261.3188.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060204183737.9f4daae4.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> <1139156616.3028.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20060205105226.91d1931a.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> Uttered "Paul W. Frields" , spake thus: > > Notice in the fdpsh and Makefile.common > > changes I've just checked in there must be the notion of a "primary > > language" for a document: the locale of the original, authoritative > > rpm-info-${LANG}.xml file. After all, not all documents will > > originate in "en", will they? The complications and accommodations > > seem to be creeping in. Let's stomp them out. > > Agreed. One question: why not have an authoritative "rpm-info.xml" file > just live in the doc module root? Yes, having a single authoritative "rpm-info.xml" file in the document root is the one true way(tm). > Yes, if some additional translators (I already heard from one) would > confirm that this doesn't burden them -- remembering to put translations > in certain elements of the "rpm-info.xml" file -- that would be grand. Well, that's one more than I've heard from. Could this really be a non-issue in the grand scheme of things? > I will put a little bit of comment fluff in the XSL stylesheets to > indicate clearly what to translate. > Is there any standardized way for indicating parts of an XML file that > should not be translated? Some sort of outboard configuration that is > understood by xml2po{,t}? Dunno, but don't think so. However, I took some care in selecting which XML elements included a "lang=foo" attribute. Is that a sufficient hint? Cheers From ra at ra.is Mon Feb 6 02:23:03 2006 From: ra at ra.is (Richard Allen) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:23:03 +0000 Subject: Just a thought... Message-ID: <43E6B307.7040902@ra.is> When committing files to the CVS that are fully translated the system promptly sends me an email letting me know that my file is now in "QA" state. This functionality is just great but I usually know when I'm finished anyway :) What I'd like to see added here is a mail when my files are no longer "Finished". This way I (we) could jump on changes as soon as they happen and I'm sure that would benefit us all. -- Rikki. -- RHCE, RHCX, HP-UX Certified Administrator. -- Solaris 7 Certified Systems and Network Administrator. Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone. Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. From nayyares at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 03:47:18 2006 From: nayyares at gmail.com (Nayyar Ahmed) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:47:18 +0500 Subject: Linux In URDU. Message-ID: <8e1ee2a30602051947t19f700ax556859c2e2ea0ad2@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I have started working on Linux URDU Translation, the translation team is: 1. Nayyar Ahmad (me) :) 2. Sohail Riaz we had started it as a part time activity, but after some days spending with translation, we have now decided to do it on full time bases, for the reason, i have requested one of my friend in Japan, and he have donated me a domain and web-hosting-space i.e. linuxinurdu.org I am now searching a few dollars donation to buy two PCs and for Pocket Money :). this will help me to give full concentration to translation project. if i could get some small donation, I hope we will succeed pretty soon. I personally request you all to find few dollars donation for this project. I am very much thank full to MR. ALAM , he really did help me. Thanks, -- Nayyar Ahmad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kwade at redhat.com Tue Feb 7 22:35:22 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 14:35:22 -0800 Subject: .po files available from Fedora Documentation Project Message-ID: <1139351722.16883.38.camel@erato.phig.org> We have recently added a 'make po' target to the Makefile for Fedora Documentation. We don't understand enough about how you perform difference checking with .po files. Is there a step that we should be doing here? Or is it a manual diff the translator runs? Step 1: You have an XML file. Step 2: make po. Step 3: add translations to .po file. Step 4: touch the original XML file. Step 5: make po. Step 6: see all previous content to PO file replaced by blanks. Right, you'd have to have an intermediate diff in there As long as they know to do this step manually. Thanks - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Content Services Fedora Documentation Project http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bgroh at redhat.com Wed Feb 8 01:32:43 2006 From: bgroh at redhat.com (Bernd Groh) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:32:43 +1000 Subject: .po files available from Fedora Documentation Project In-Reply-To: <1139351722.16883.38.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1139351722.16883.38.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <43E94A3B.1000407@redhat.com> Karsten, I don't quite understand the question. >We have recently added a 'make po' target to the Makefile for Fedora >Documentation. > > Is it just a make pot target, to create the english pot from the xml? Or does it merge the translations in with msgmerge? >We don't understand enough about how you perform difference checking >with .po files. > > If you refer to changes, then this is dealt with by msgmerge. If an entry has changed, the old translations will be placed in the msgstr, and the entry will be set to fuzzy. Diff you can or cannot use to find the differences in fuzzy entries, but that's not really essential to the translation process. >Is there a step that we should be doing here? Or is it a manual diff >the translator runs? > > Step 1: You have an XML file. > Step 2: make po. > > Make pot. Which is the same as a po file with just the english strings and msgstrs empty. If there is no po, you can simply copy the pot to po. If there is an old po, msgmerge pot and po file to create a new po file. Changed entries are automatically set to fuzzy. > Step 3: add translations to .po file. > > As in translate, I believe? > Step 4: touch the original XML file. > > Does this refer to an update of the xml-file? > Step 5: make po. > > If yes, as above. > Step 6: see all previous content to PO file replaced by >blanks. > Right, you'd have to have an intermediate diff in there > As long as they know to do this step manually. > > Still unsure about this. Bernd From alan at redhat.com Wed Feb 8 01:43:40 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:43:40 -0500 Subject: .po files available from Fedora Documentation Project In-Reply-To: <1139351722.16883.38.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1139351722.16883.38.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <20060208014340.GD6696@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 02:35:22PM -0800, Karsten Wade wrote: > Is there a step that we should be doing here? Or is it a manual diff > the translator runs? > > Step 1: You have an XML file. > Step 2: make po. > Step 3: add translations to .po file. > Step 4: touch the original XML file. > Step 5: make po. > Step 6: see all previous content to PO file replaced by > blanks. ITYM ... You have an XML file make po create new po blank as a temp name does a msgmerge with the existing .po if present puts previous .po in .po.bank Puts merge output in .po From Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com Wed Feb 8 16:26:53 2006 From: Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com (Tommy Reynolds) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:26:53 -0600 Subject: .po files available from Fedora Documentation Project In-Reply-To: <20060208014340.GD6696@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <1139351722.16883.38.camel@erato.phig.org> <20060208014340.GD6696@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20060208102653.d2b764d4.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> Uttered Alan Cox , spake thus: > make po > create new po blank as a temp name > does a msgmerge with the existing .po if present > puts previous .po in .po.bank > Puts merge output in .po Aha. The msgmerge(1) was my missing piece. All is now well. From kwade at redhat.com Mon Feb 13 00:52:28 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:52:28 -0800 Subject: status of FC5 test3 release notes Message-ID: <1139791948.11779.196.camel@erato.phig.org> It looks as if there are no release notes ready in time to translate for test3. We have been completely restructuring the build environment for the release-notes module. This must be done by tomorrow for the ISO, and there is not going to be time to get the XML translated. The translatable XML files are not changing content, but the XML tags and build environment are changing. If you wish to attempt to translate these files anyway, we are going to include in the ISO every language that builds. Sorry about this situation. We should be fixed within a few days to allow for a smooth process for FC5 final release. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Content Services Fedora Documentation Project http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 01:25:05 2006 From: bbbush.yuan at gmail.com (Yuan Yijun) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:25:05 +0800 Subject: status of FC5 test3 release notes In-Reply-To: <1139791948.11779.196.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <1139791948.11779.196.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <76e72f800602121725x7077c713i@mail.gmail.com> 2006/2/13, Karsten Wade : > It looks as if there are no release notes ready in time to translate for > test3. > Even en cannot build cleanly on my machine. When executing xsltproc (the first command "make" executes) perl prompts locale are not defined. And xslto said xml not validated and "href" not known, why? :( -- bbbush ^_^ From bbbush.yuan at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 04:34:42 2006 From: bbbush.yuan at gmail.com (Yuan Yijun) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:34:42 +0800 Subject: status of FC5 test3 release notes In-Reply-To: <76e72f800602121725x7077c713i@mail.gmail.com> References: <1139791948.11779.196.camel@erato.phig.org> <76e72f800602121725x7077c713i@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <76e72f800602122034pd5db7aau@mail.gmail.com> 2006/2/13, Yuan Yijun : > > Even en cannot build cleanly on my machine. When executing xsltproc > (the first command "make" executes) perl prompts locale are not > defined. And xslto said xml not validated and "href" not known, why? > :( > [yuan at localhost release-notes]$ make xsltproc --stringparam lang en --stringparam doctype articleinfo /home/yuan/fedora/docs/release-notes/../docs-common/packaging/bookinfo.xsl /home/yuan/fedora/docs/release-notes/en/rpm-info-en.xml | xmlformat -f /home/yuan/fedora/docs/release-notes/../docs-common/bin/xmlformat-fdp.conf > en/fdp-info-en.xml.tmp && move-if-change en/fdp-info-en.xml.tmp en/fdp-info-en.xml perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LANG = "en" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). sed -i 's#legalnotice-en.xml#legalnotice-relnotes-en.xml#g' en/fdp-info-en.xml LANG=en.UTF-8 xmlto html -x /home/yuan/fedora/docs/release-notes/../docs-common/xsl/main-html.xsl -o RELEASE-NOTES-en en/RELEASE-NOTES-en.xml Writing ln-legalnotice.html for legalnotice(legalnotice) No template for "/article/articleinfo/revhistory" (or any of its leaves) exists in the context named "title" in the "en" localization. Writing rv-revhistory.html for revhistory (Writing.....) After an update today, the validating error disappeared and make succeeded. -- bbbush ^_^ From Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com Mon Feb 13 17:55:45 2006 From: Tommy.Reynolds at MegaCoder.com (Tommy Reynolds) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:55:45 -0600 Subject: [RFC] Existing translations and .PO files Message-ID: <20060213115545.00fcbfca.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> Hello, Translators! (I've CC:'ed the F-D-L as well.) I'm reworking the I18N support in the Fedora Documentation Project tools, such as the CVS. Previously, each document has had a set of base DocBook XML files. As translations were produced, complete new sets of translated XML files were added to the CVS repository. Now, we are moving to the more familiar process of archiving only the original document XML files and the .POT/.PO files needed to produce the translated XML files using the "xml2po" and "po2xml" tools. The new make(1) infrastructure will be able to use the .PO files to create the translated XML files on-the-fly. For example, the files "en/example-tutorial.xml" and "po/de.po" will be archived but the derived "de/example-tutorial.xml" file will NOT be archived but will be considered as a temporary file. My question is this: Some FDP documents already have translated versions in CVS. Under the new process, these archived versions will be discarded in favor of the on-the-fly translation using .PO files. Q1) Have you translators kept your .PO files that were used for these translations? Q2) If .PO files are not available, is there a way to derive the .PO files from the translated files or must this be a manual process? If you have another suggestion to dealing with this, don't be shy; I may not be asking the right questions. Cheers From kwade at redhat.com Mon Feb 13 21:50:14 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:50:14 -0800 Subject: status of FC5 test3 release notes In-Reply-To: <76e72f800602122034pd5db7aau@mail.gmail.com> References: <1139791948.11779.196.camel@erato.phig.org> <76e72f800602121725x7077c713i@mail.gmail.com> <76e72f800602122034pd5db7aau@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1139867414.11779.358.camel@erato.phig.org> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 12:34 +0800, Yuan Yijun wrote: > 2006/2/13, Yuan Yijun : > > > > Even en cannot build cleanly on my machine. When executing xsltproc > > (the first command "make" executes) perl prompts locale are not > > defined. And xslto said xml not validated and "href" not known, why? > > :( > > > After an update today, the validating error disappeared and make succeeded. Yes. An announcement was sent yesterday to fedora-docs-list that the Makefile/toolchain was intentionally broken. Sorry about the situation. Anyway, test3 ISOs don't matter! Let's keep our eyes on many more language translations of the release notes for FC5 final release. :) - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Content Services Fedora Documentation Project http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From tombo at adamantio.net Tue Feb 14 12:43:59 2006 From: tombo at adamantio.net (Francesco Tombolini) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 07:43:59 -0500 Subject: [RFC] Existing translations and .PO files In-Reply-To: <20060213115545.00fcbfca.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> References: <20060213115545.00fcbfca.Tommy.Reynolds@MegaCoder.com> Message-ID: <200602140744.04545.tombo@adamantio.net> Alle 12:55, luned? 13 febbraio 2006, Tommy Reynolds ha scritto: .... > > Some FDP documents already have translated versions in CVS. Under > the new process, these archived versions will be discarded in favor > of the on-the-fly translation using .PO files. I think that to have .po files in the repo instead of .xml will be a good thing. > Q1) Have you translators kept your .PO files that were used for these > translations? the question would be: how many of you use the .po method to translate the xml file for the last translation? > Q2) If .PO files are not available, is there a way to derive the .PO > files from the translated files or must this be a manual process? For me, this is a manual process , copy & paste..., mechanical and not too difficult for little documents Cheers -- Francesco Tombolini -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Mon Feb 27 05:21:51 2006 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:21:51 -0800 Subject: status on release notes translation freeze Message-ID: <1141017712.8018.336.camel@erato.phig.org> We are going to be one or two days late with the release notes translation freeze. The new freeze is 28 Feb. 23:59 UTC. I will send another message tomorrow night confirming this new freeze. I'm sorry about this delay. I forgot to ask for a review from a key group of Red Hat developers, and we need to give them an extra day or two to reply. Thanks for your patience, - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41 Content Services Fedora Documentation Project http://www.redhat.com/docs http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: