[Pkg-isocodes-devel] iso_3166-2.0.pot

[LI Daobing]

Hello,

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Tobias Toedter <t.toedter at gmx.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:49:04 +0100
>  Benno Schulenberg <coordinator at translationproject.org> wrote:
>
>  > Tobias Toedter wrote:
>  > > The tarball can be found here:
>  > ><ftp://pkg-isocodes.alioth.debian.org/pub/pkg-isocodes/iso-codes-2.0.tar.bz2>
>  > >
>  > > This time, we've received updates for Galician, Hebrew, and
>  > > Indonesian without using the TP (all for the domain iso_3166
>  > > only). Maybe you should mark those languages as external as well.
>  >
>  > Sorry, I can't be bothered, if you can't be bothered to refuse
>  > updates when they don't come through the expected channel.
>  >
>  > For Galician the PO-Revision-Date wasn't updated, though the file
>  > was changed.  Jacobo really should know better.
>
>  Hello Benno,
>
>  I didn't notice that the PO-Revision-Date wasn't changed, however, if
>  this language would be marked as external, this should not matter at
>  all, right?
>
>  Apart from that, I cannot force the translator to use the TP. Even if
>  (in this case) he is already registered at the TP and decides to send
>  the update directly to us, what should I do instead of notifying him
>  about our changed workflow? I will certainly not refuse his translation.
>
>
>  > For Vietnamese you didn't pull in more recent files from the TP.
>  > Even when it's only the Revision-Date that changed, translators
>  > like to be able to easily see whether their most recent work was
>  > used.
>
>  This is not quite true. I *did* pull in all Vietnamese translations
>  from the TP. While comparing, I noticed that in fact only one
>  translation had a real content change, all other files were only
>  updated in the header. Therefore, I removed them again and only kept
>  the one actual translation update.
>
>  Benno, I can perfectly understand that you're annoyed by iso-codes. But
>  please note that we've just released the first version of that package
>  which clearly states in the README that we want to receive translation
>  updates via the TP, not the Debian BTS or other channels.
>
>  I think that our translators will still need some more time to notice
>  this change, and all "external" translators of the last version have
>  been notified by me via e-mail that they should consider to use the TP.
>
>  Apart from that, I can only support Christian's view: We're doing our
>  best to sort out the difficulties with iso-codes / TP, but we will not
>  refuse to accept translations from other sources. We will, however, try
>  to make things go smooth again, so that not every single update is a
>  hassle for you. This includes notifying translators of the TP workflow.
>  But please allow a bit more time to let things settle down.
>

I think you can forward the mail to maillist of corresponding language
team(maybe you need subscribe) or forward to the coordinator of the
language team instead of directly merge it to iso-codes.


-- 
Best Regards,
 LI Daobing