Re: Cosmetic changes in help files

Hi Christian,
Le 22/03/2016 12:13, Christian Lohmaier a écrit :
> Hi Sophie, *,
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Sophie <gautier.sophie@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear developers,
> >
> > A reminder about dealing with help files and cosmetic changes:
>
> Despite what translators think and how they voice their opinion,
> fixing syntax errors is not doing cosmetic changes.

Well, you're right, sorry for the wrong word, but it has been there for
so many years...
> Validation errors have been ignored for too long, time to weed that
> out, whether translators like it or not.
> We have validation checks in pootle for a reason. While some are less
> useful than others, at least the xml-validility ones should be
> respected.  And if people don't know why a error is triggered, they
> should use feedback functionality/ask on the list.
>
> > attributes removal such as oldref
>
> and this has been discussed already. (that's the cause for msg-context
> changes and will be auto-fixed)
>
> Adding up already-told-to-be-autofixed with other occurences of fuzzy
> strings won't make that double the amount of strings to fix.

The request is to not have all at the same time, and at least have the
l10n team informed about how that will impact them.
If it has been there for years, then the changes could be spanned over
several versions. The same way, we don't organize our time the same if
we know that we will have a large amount of strings to review. If you
tell us "ignore this file", we won't spend time to work on it.
It's just about communication among groups, not to reproach anybody the
work he has done and how legitimate it is, on the contrary each
enhancement is welcome, but evaluating and leverage the impact on others
work is also part of it.
Cheers
Sophie

-- 
Sophie Gautier sophie.gautier@documentfoundation.org
GSM: +33683901545
IRC: sophi
Co-founder - Release coordinator
The Document Foundation