Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1A32E0066 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:46:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66781-04 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:46:14 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (mu-out-0910.google.com [209.85.134.189]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B9C2E0039 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:46:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i10so5549200mue.5 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:46:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=AfAorVKV1Jv4LdVi2MleqgYDxNNNOnMIuEzkIBFo8Wo=; b=r9Vk+7BBxnF+AJYXaukO3kc16l6b9JlKLbHkDdLC9yEJ///Or6IXjTd87E6c4wU4+CIDeYr8tny2z84SuoYLpF2un88DyK728lB7s/yZuYirKn9ZqgyAzqn9OQnOdbNsMUDa+/fz542Nf7NqFxT5MDtU40SJ+BGspqathKwaC2U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=VGTOaL5jG8xCpQtUCXzZDLT0VnFMGRN3Rxv5S18W52MwiYOA6xfvHL/iqM07hXOP+UpVkKg3ApxOvpFd1w0pqxJWtzX3q2adUcpRS+6hbS8+7Bom3VaB+VyVLzJx3mlwUzGsdK0jVNo7uEYv0TLlz5oPI25flsbtDZvkkgUEyUQ= Received: by 10.82.185.3 with SMTP id i3mr2406679buf.22.1206632770843; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.83.9 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:46:10 +0200 From: "Adrian Maier" To: "PostgreSQL www" Subject: Re: PostgreSQL website translations In-Reply-To: <47EBA9F4.3000207@lelarge.info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080310094928.GH30980@svr2.hagander.net> <47D517C4.3000508@lelarge.info> <47E6D923.9050307@lelarge.info> <20080327130632.4baa89f8@mha-laptop> <47EBA9F4.3000207@lelarge.info> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/613 X-Sequence-Number: 14732 On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > Adrian Maier a =E9crit : > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Magnus Hagander = wrote: > >> Adrian Maier wrote: > >> > Perhaps we could something like : every translated contains > >> > a comment with the date+time+revision of the corresponding > >> > English page ? at least this would make it possible to > >> > manually manage the corresponding English revision for a given > >> > translated page. > >> > >> Perhaps we could use a custom svn property for that? That would like= ly > >> make it easier to process automatically to pull out differences and > >> such. And perhaps some wrapper scripts around svn to help you set > >> things automatically? > > > > I haven't used such custom properties. As long as such a property can > > be set for individual files , it seems to be a better (more reliable)= solution > > compared to relying on comments. Some scripts for using this facilit= y > > would be a significant progress . > > > > There's something I don't quite understand. What's the interest in > having these comments (or custom svn properties) ? > > Tell me if I'm wrong. This is what we want to achieve : > we want to know if a specific translated webpage is out of date > > Problem is : > * translator checks out a file > * during the translation, someone else checks out the file > * and commit its changes > * then translator commits its new translation > > Using the modification date doesn't help us because the translation file > will be newer than the english one. > Using the svn revision does not help us because the translation file > will have a revision newer than the english one. > > So, your idea seems to put the revision of the english file in a comment > or in a custom property. So, it's a manual change : > > * translator checks out a file > * he updates the comment of the translation with the revision of the > english file > * he translates > * he commits > > Is that right ? > > And when the web server needs to choose between the english file and the > translated one, it parses the translated one to get the revision put in > comments, it gets the current revision of the english files and it > finally compares them ? > > Could work, but we still rely on the translator good will. No automatic > process here. Or am I wrong ? Actually , there are two different purposes : 1) detecting which translated pages went out-of-date 2) providing some reliable tools that help the translators to easily spot the (English) modifications that they need to incorporate into their translated texts. I am primarily interested in (2) , because plain cvs/svn is not helpful enough when translating . As for (1) : it will never be possible to automatically ensure that a translation is truly up-to-date . We'll need to trust the translators when they claim they've updated some page . Especially when you don't understand their language ... --=20 Adrian Maier