Re: New Spanish PO file for `gcc'

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Translation Project Robot wrote:

> This file has already been sent to you separately on 2001-12-03,
> as a MIME invoice unpacking the file `gcc-2.96.20000615.es.po'.

Why would the translator have translated that antique version, which is of
little use, rather than the 3.0 .pot file (which is also of little use
now, since 3.0 has outdated and not fully functional translation machinery
and many messages have changed since then, but not so antique as that
version)?  Can that antique .pot file be removed from the translation
project to avoid other translators using it?

Can such files be sent in gzip form (since some may approach or exceed the
400k message size limit on gcc-patches)?

> Please consider including all PO files, as they stand, in the `po/'
> subdirectory of your next release of programs using that textual domain,
> whether it is official or pretest.  Whenever you have a distribution ready
> which holds a newer PO Template, please send the URL of this distribution
> to the address below.  The distribution could be a pretest or a snapshot,
> it does not even have to compile.  This is to be used by translators,
> when they need to get some translation context from your sources.

Do I understand from this that, if automatic .pot updating is set up for
weekly snapshots, each weekly snapshot should be submitted to the system?

Can the system accept a CVS pserver address instead?  Otherwise, what
system should be allowed to retrieve the snapshot distributions from
gcc.gnu.org, notwithstanding the simultaneous connection limits?  Or will
the robot retrieving distributions retry as many times as necessary?
(Making the snapshot script send a URL is trivial, but gcc.gnu.org is
often at its maximum number of FTP connections and we don't have control
over when mirrors pick new snapshots up; but mirrors are allowed access
even when the maximum number of connections are in progress.)

> Within the Translation Project, each PO Template file should have different
> version numbers, but since it is not OK to have two different distributions
> having same version numbers, this is not a problem in practice.

How do we indicate which previous .pot files are obsoleted by a new one?
A new snapshot one should now obsolete all previous ones in the system,
but we might want to provide both mainline and 3.1 branch .pot files
later, which should not obsolete each other (though only the latest
mainline and latest 3.1 branch files would be relevant).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk