This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: New Spanish PO file for `gcc'
> 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 now, since 3.0 has outdated and not fully functional translation machinery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
Because translating such a large catalog takes many months to
complete. Translators will usually not stop in the middle of their
work. Instead, they will continue to translate, and submit their
translation. They work at their own pace; it doesn't help to interfere
or tell them what to do (just like translators shouldn't interfere
with the maintainers, by demanding that they release a new version of
the software just because they have completed a translation).
> Can that antique .pot file be removed from the translation project
> to avoid other translators using it?
No. Please understand that the translation is *not* of "little
use". Instead, many messages will be useful unmodified in gcc 3.0;
others may need slight modifications. Please don't diminish the effort
that translators have put into this as "antique".
Translators starting with new translations will certainly start with
the gcc 3.0 PO template (which is the latest we have available);
again, it *will* be useful even if they complete their translations
after 3.1 is released.
> Can such files be sent in gzip form (since some may approach or
> exceed the 400k message size limit on gcc-patches)?
Not easily, although we may be able to work something out. One thing
that can be done easily is to leave out the actual catalog, and only
send an URL where to download the file. If that is desirable, I can
change it right away.
Please understand that this is an automatic procedure sending these
notifications; support for compressing the catalogs hasn't been
> 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?
Please, no. There is currently no automatic .pot upload supported in
the TP (it requires manual integration of new templates), and
translators may get overwhelmened with weekly updates: They need to
merge their translations with the template, finding perhaps many new
fuzzy translations, which need careful inspection.
Providing new PO templates to translators is desirable whenever a
release comes close: translators of existing translations will then
have a chance to update their translations, in time for the release.
In the specific case of gcc, I think it would be useful to provide a
PO template at the time the 3.1 branch is created, and perhaps another
one shortly before the release. Please understand that it is
absolutely not necessary that all messages are translated: users may
never see some of the messages, so they'll get the impression that
everything is translated even if it isn't.
> > 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?
Every translations supercedes the previous one. For projects that
maintain two branches (previous/current release) over a long time, we
can arrange it to have two "active" templates. For gcc 3, if there
will be a 3.0.3 release, it may be reasonable to publish an update for
the 3.0 template, while also comtemplating publishing a version of the
While I have your attention, may I ask that
gets a response? There is a number of existing translations which
don't show up in the GCC CVS. I'm willing to commit them if nobody
else does, but I feel I need approval.