This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Broken translations


[subject changed to avoid spam block which these messages got because of 
their volume]

I have committed the 4.0-b20050226 versions of the Kinyarwanda 
translations for gcc and cpplib to mainline and 4.0 branch.  I am puzzled 
at the large number of messages sent lately with translations for 
different GCC versions; I could understand translators who started several 
years ago translating 3.0 and only updated to a more recent version when 
it was finished, but not the utility of producing translations for every 
different gcc.po version, 3.0 onwards, *none of them having more than 7 
non-fuzzy translations out of thousands of messages*.  (And, similarly, 
the current cpplib translation has zero non-fuzzy translations.)  When 
there are so many messages with translations of different versions there's 
liable to be confusion about which version if any should be committed; 
whereas if translators are sending several updates a day of translations 
for the most recent version, at least I know I can ignore all but the most 
recent message when committing to CVS.

I have not committed anything to 3.4 branch or 3.3 branch and given the 
tiny numbers of non-fuzzy translations I doubt the utility of doing so.

The messages include many which are completely garbled, contain none of 
the % format specifiers in the original messages, map many diagnostics to 
the same text, and have other problems.  I don't really believe that "ku" 
is the Kinyarwanda translation of "bb %d on wrong place", "Align some 
doubles on dword boundary", "  by %qD", "Disable optimizations observable 
by IEEE signaling NaNs" and many other messages, for example.  Could the 
translation team please explain what is going on with this translation?

If there was a four-day delay between submission of these messages to the 
TP and them being sent out on 5 April, could the TP messages include the 
date of submission to the TP in future to avoid such confusion with 
genuine translations?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]