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

[Benno Schulenberg]

LI Daobing wrote:
> 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:
> > > For Galician the PO-Revision-Date wasn't updated, though the
> > > file was changed.  Jacobo really should know better.
> >
> >  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?

Well, it will not hinder the functioning of iso-codes, but it might 
confuse people who look at the PO file later.  I look at many PO 
files regularly, and it is exasperating to see headers that have 
obviously not been filled in correctly: wrong dates, missing names, 
missing initial comment lines...  It is impossible to decide who 
made the file, when the last changes were made, who made these 
changes, whom to complain to in case of errors...  It matters.

Besides, in this case I don't want to mark the language as external, 
since the translator is already a member of the TP.  A TP member 
wanting to bypass the TP is somewhat absurd.

> >  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?

The best would be to refuse to accept it directly.  In this case it 
should not be a problem for the translator to use the TP route.

> > I will certainly not refuse his translation.

Why not?  If you don't push, if you don't resist, people will take 
the shortest route.  If you always accept direct submissions, 
translators won't bother to join the TP.

> > 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.

Thanks for explaining.  I will try to be more patient.  But I would 
much prefer if you _did refuse direct submissions for languages 
that already have a team at the TP.

> 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.

This would be ideal.  Whenever you get a direct submission of a PO 
file, please forward the mail to the leader of the corresponding 
team at the TP.  He or she can upload the file to the TP -- after 
tweaking the headers if necessary -- without needing an assignment.

Regards,

Benno