Re: (no subject)
- From: Bernd Groh <bgroh redhat com>
- To: Marcel Telka <marcel telka sk>
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>,Christian Rose <menthos gnome org>,Christophe Fergeau <teuf users sourceforge net>,GNOME I18N List <gnome-i18n gnome org>,GNOME Desktop Development List <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: (no subject)
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 11:27:21 +1000
Marcel,
> Please consider this scenario for translators (I prefer "developer's"
> point of the view for po files handling):
I consider both, the "developer's" point as much as the "translator's",
as such, I agree with what some people in here have already said, and I
quote from the "developer's" perspective: "the build tools must be fixed
not to modify those po files" (s/must/should).
> 1. I'm working (as a transaltor) with ll.po file.
Ok. :)
> 2. In the meantime someone (the package maintainer) updates "my" ll.po
> file in CVS.
Fine with me, given s/he's done some changes to ll.po. If nothing has
changed really, it's nothing but a waste, not just of CVS resources, but
also of my (being a translator) time.
> 3. My work with ll.po is finished. I'm about to commit the ll.po to
> the CVS.
Ok. :)
> 4. I'm performing `cvs up` for whole module and there is a conflict
> with my ll.po.
Doh!
> 5. This conflict IS NOT HARD to resolve.
Well, I'll resolve it. I don't mind really, given I find that something
has changed. If I start checking for conflicts and figure that nothing
has changed really, I'm tending to get a little annoyed here, even more,
when I find that some of my translations are suddenly broken. What for,
for nothing? You brake my translations without even having made a single
change? *breaks yet another pen*
> 6. cvs backups my copy of the ll.po (it's named, say '.#ll.po.1.30')
I'll perform this "unneccesary" step to find out what my file's backed
up at.
> 7. Peform this command sequence to resolve the conflict:
> rm -f ll.po
> cvs up
> mv .#ll.po.1.30 ll.po
> intltool-update ll
> cvs ci ll.po
I'll perform these "really unneccesary" steps to save my translations
(and I cannot be bothered really to check them manually in order to
figure whether they're still all ok, I might find some broken ones
eventually).
> Now, all is ok. Translator is happy, developer is happy :-). There is
> no problem.
Erm, what exactly is your definition of happy?
I am not happy -- NOT AT ALL!! I'm highly annoyed!! The developer could
have saved me from all that pain, with one simple step, so I'll annoy
her/him, 'cause I'm annoyed at her/him. Which, in return, means that the
developer gets annoyed at me, since I blame her/him for not performing
this simple step. As a developer, I am now annoyed at the translator,
for annoying me, and at the damn bloddy tool, for doing what it does and
causing the translator getting annoyed, resulting in her/him annoying me.
If you ask me (from "my" perspective), fix the bloddy damn build tool!! *l*
Cheers,
Bernd
--
Disclaimer: Other than what's stated at http://apac.redhat.com/disclaimer, this email is not meant to be serious, but simply meant to be illustrative of a certain point -- the point being, that the sender of this email believes that it would be best to change the behaviour of the beforementioned build tool. :-)
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]