You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Kobayashi Noritada <no...@dolphin.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp> on 2006/08/23 18:31:21 UTC

[PATCH] Update po files in the 1.4.x branch (was: Re: [l10n] Translation status for branches/1.4.x r21204)

Hi,

> We're going to need to do some po-merge.py-ing soon.  The script
> itself seems straightforward enough: just go into a 1.4.x checkout and
> run something like "svn cat
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/subversion/po/sv.po |
> po-merge.py sv.po".

Here is a gzipped patch to update po files in the 1.4.x branch.  This
is created by automatically running "make locale-gnu-po-update"
(twice; please read the tailing part of this message.) and po-merge.

Since languages but for ja does not have translation for messages
updated recently (e.g. the help message for '--pre-1.4-compatible'),
this patch does not complete translation in the 1.4.x branch for any
languages.  But, it improves situation like this:


Status for original po files (r21229):

Translation status report for revision 21229 (branches/1.4.x)

============================================================================
    lang untrans   fuzzy   trans     obs
   de.po      32      12    1397       0
   es.po       2       0    1469      89
   fr.po       5       0    1465       0
   it.po       0       0    1469       0
   ja.po       0       0    1478     266
   ko.po       0      32    1470       0
   nb.po       0       0    1478       0
   pl.po      28      69    1401      43
pt_BR.po       0       0    1473       0
   sv.po       0       0    1473       0
zh_CN.po       0     213    1373      19
zh_TW.po       0       0    1473      59


Status for original po files against current source code (r21229 +
po-update):

Translation status report for revision 21229 (branches/1.4.x)

============================================================================
    lang untrans   fuzzy   trans     obs
   de.po      53      74    1425      12
   es.po       8      14    1470      96
   fr.po      15      23    1463      10
   it.po      10      24    1468      10
   ja.po       0       0    1478     266
   ko.po      10      52    1468      10
   nb.po       2       2    1476       3
   pl.po      49     127    1429      56
pt_BR.po       7      21    1471      10
   sv.po       7      21    1471      10
zh_CN.po      62     319    1416      61
zh_TW.po       7      21    1471      69


Status for po files here against current source code (r21229 +
po-update + po-merge):

Translation status report for revision 21229 (branches/1.4.x)

============================================================================
    lang untrans   fuzzy   trans     obs
   de.po      53      74    1425      12
   es.po       7       1    1471      96
   fr.po       1       1    1477      10
   it.po       1       1    1477      10
   ja.po       0       0    1478     266
   ko.po       7       9    1471      10
   nb.po       2       2    1476       3
   pl.po      35     128    1443      56
pt_BR.po       1       1    1477      10
   sv.po       7      20    1471      10
zh_CN.po      62     319    1416      61
zh_TW.po       7      20    1471      69


> Folks who've done this before: do I want to run and check in the
> result of "make locale-gnu-po-update" on trunk and/or 1.4.x before I
> do merges?  Or will this confuse  translators? (TRANSLATING says that
> I *can* run locale-gnu-po-update on branches, but I'm not sure if it's
> the right thing to do right now.)

I always check after running "make locale-gnu-po-update", since it
breaks order of obsolete messages. It does not break po files but
makes diff larger.  I know running the command twice works well.

Thanks,

-nori

Re: [PATCH] Update po files in the 1.4.x branch

Posted by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>.
Kobayashi Noritada wrote:
> Here is a gzipped patch to update po files in the 1.4.x branch.  This
> is created by automatically running "make locale-gnu-po-update"
> (twice; please read the tailing part of this message.) and po-merge.

For any automated operations, it is better to send a list of commands to
run, rather than a patch. It is much easier for someone to review the
commands, than the copious diffs they generate.

I don't really understand about running the update twice - could you
clarify that?

Thanks,
Max.