Re: Something wrong with bug-buddy doc?

[Claude Paroz <claude 2xlibre net>]

Le dimanche 19 décembre 2010 à 19:05 +0100, Petr Kovar a écrit :
> Hi!
> 
> Mario Blättermann <mariobl gnome org>, Sun, 19 Dec 2010 14:22:56 +0100:
> 
> > Am Sonntag, den 19.12.2010, 12:35 +0100 schrieb Jorge González González:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > is there anything wrong with the bug buddy documentation?
> > > http://l10n.gnome.org/vertimus/bug-buddy/master/help/es
> > 
> > 
> > There is no really documentation. In the Git tree I found a manpage
> > only, and a naked manpage without any other stuff (appropriate
> > Makefile.am and OMF file) cannot be parsed by the gnome-doc-utils. As
> > far as I know, some explanations for bug-buddy are in the Desktop User
> > Manual.
> > 
> > Recently, there appeared some other manuals in the Damned Lies which
> > were also untranslatable yet. For gnome-pilot and genius I have added
> > g-d-u support immediately, and the meld manual shouldn't be translated
> > for the time being, after consulting the meld maintainer, because it is
> > outdated. A new build system for meld will be implemented anyway next
> > time, probably autotools or waf.
> > 
> > Why appears the non-existent manual of bug-buddy in D-L? No idea...
> > Could be that Vertimus parses the Git content regularly. But there's
> > nothing which resembles a DocBook or Mallard hierarchy. And I remember,
> > in the last years a similar bug-buddy manual appeared several times in
> > D-L and disappeared again some time later from it, also with zero
> > translatable strings. A bug in the parser routines of Vertimus?
> 
> I went ahead and adjusted the appropriate settings for meld and bug-buddy.
> From the DL admin interface, it seems we can't keep documentation domain
> set for a particular module branch or branches,

Yes, I confirm this limitation of D-L. Domains are related to the module
object and cannot be specified by branch, which sometimes causes some
pecularities.

>  but since gnome-2-24 has
> been released long time ago and is officially unmaintained now, I think we
> can live without the old stats.

Sure, thanks for updating.

Claude
-- 
www.2xlibre.net