01.11.2011, 21:53, "John J. McDonough" <wb8rcr@xxxxxxxx>: >> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:25:33 +0900 >> From: Misha Shnurapet <shnurapet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > [clip] > >> 31.10.2011, 23:05, "Kévin Raymond" <shaiton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> I think that you should not include Revision History in your >>> statistics, this file is useful, but not really needed to be >>> translated (I translated it only in order to get 100% ^^), IMHO of >>> course. >> I think it'd be better to have a list of contributors rather than a revision history log. > > A list of contributors would be great, but we haven't figured out how to > do that. In the past we have tried but have never been able to get it > right, especially with the translators. Perhaps the new tx offers some > options we haven't examined. For writers, we can check the wiki > history, git commits and bugzilla, but there tend to be a lot of > translators that we don't know how to identify. > > As far as the revision history, that is necessary. However, I also > question the value of translating it. There are two possible ways to deal with the list of translators as I see it: 1. to collect the names from the .po file headers, which are filled, AFAIK, automatically by Transifex; 2. to omit this list (just like it is done now), naming the authors only. Should the revision history be necessary, its module should miss Transifex and it's in the bag. -- Best regards, Misha Shnurapet, Fedora Project Contributor Email: shnurapet AT fedoraproject.org, IRC: misha on freenode https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/shnurapet, GPG: 00217306 -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
