[libreoffice-l10n] LO Pootle

Hi Sophie,

Thank you for all the explanations! :-)

On 2010-12-29 at 21:00 +0300, Sophie Gautier wrote:

> This is now two/three months that we didn't touch the files because we 
> do not have them in the LO Pootle repository and we are not working any 
> more on the OOo Pootle repository. So some teams have now a fair amount 
> of issues to fix in their files, that will take time and resources, and 
> we need to have the complete set of files in the LO Pootle repository 
> for that.

I see, OK.  What is at the moment blocking the import of the content of
the OOo Pootle into the LO Pootle, please?  Just some missing tooling,
or the decision of what is the source for the translations & how to
organize them?

On 2010-12-29 at 21:00 +0300, Sophie Gautier wrote:

> > Ah, maybe I understand now ;-)  So of course, it is up to you to define
> > if you want to have the translations merged from the OOo tree to the LO
> > tree for 3.4, or not.  I understand it that you'd prefer not to, ie.
> > l10n repo (containing the localize.sdf's) untouched by the merges from
> > OOo, right?
>
> That was what I was not sure about: all the new features and bug fixes 
> for OOo will be merged to the LO tree for 3.4.

Most probably we won't be merging everything, which might cause trouble
when merging the localizations as a whole :-(

> In that case yes, we want the l10n repo merged and containing all the 
> new features or fixes strings from OOo. And the sooner the better 
> whatever the amount of strings :-)
> So that means that we can extract the strings from the last OOoDEV and 
> merge them with our LO file to have the complete (UI+HC2) set of strings 
> up to date until now?

Based on what you wrote, I think for LO master (towards-3.4), the best
would be to extract all the strings from the current git repositories
(ie. from the LO master branch, not from OOoDEV) to have the complete
set (so that it would look similar to what is in the OOo Pootle now, but
based on LO sources), and msgmerge the translations from OOo and from
lo-build.po.  That way, it would be easy to merge updated translations
from OOo later (should there be any), while still having the LO strings
as the base.  Or are there reasons not to do that?

BTW - would it help you if we got rid of the sdf files, and instead we
had .po files in the l10n git repository?  [For sure it would help us
who work with the git repos, because the sdf file format is just
something incredibly terrible for version control.]  Would you be able
to merge directly from the OOo Pootle, or from .po files produced by
that, or do you still need .sdf for part of your workflow?

Regards,
Kendy


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to l10n+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/l10n/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***