> This way I think we would lose the one GIMP manual. We instead would > have a dozen books that more and more will diverse or even die. > Be sure I know many of the multi-language annoyances in our files, > but anyway I think they are the only way to get ONE manual in > different languages. This stays true as long as we work on a day by > day basis on the (en) manual, not having a strong focus on en an > timing. To change that would mean we'd need a schedule with fixed(!) > deadlines. "Somebody" would write and finish (!) the en book and then > all the "ohters" would take that bible and translate it into their > respective language. - AFAIK is this not the style of work that fits > our needs and pleasures. I do not agree. There is no need to keep all the manuals same (and it is not the case now, anyway). What we need is to keep the same basic structure, which is basically defined by help IDs. No need to have identical books. I actually thought that there was already a consensus to split the files and it wasnt done yet because of technical reasons. Keeping all languages in same files is not the way to go. It will become PITA once some languages start lagging behind - restructuring chapters, for example, while there is noone available to do it for some of the languages, would be a problem. Please, lets split them Jakub Friedl _______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
