Re: I18N spam part II -- "reviewed" po files

[Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, R.I.P. Deaddog wrote:
> So I guess something like "X-Last-Reviewer:" in addition to
> "PO-Review-Date:" so that one can determine if the review is outdated, and
> we needn't add all reviewers since pre-historic time.
>
>
> > In short, I think this has to be solved by more informal reviews and
> > getting the teams to really use their mailing lists, rather than inventing
> > some formal review syntax, that is rather unlikely to be supported by
> > gettext & co anytime soon.
>
> It's true that informal reviewing is enough (that's my experience, not
> necessary others), but inserting that reviewing information isn't bad.
> Other applications can ignore that tag instead of segfault or refusing to
> start, right? Don't think it's very harmful even if it's useless.

You're right. If you add a review date to the header field, similar to the
po-revision-date, it starts to make more sense. Then you can easily
see if the review is outdated. Maybe this was the idea all the time and I
just didn't get it, sorry for that.


Christian