On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 01:46 -0700, saulgoode@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Quoting Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx>: > > > a while ago we went over all plug-ins, reviewed the procedure blurbs and > > marked them for translation. The blurbs are shown in the image status > > bar and as menu tooltips. This hasn't happened for Script-Fu yet, even > > though the script procedure blurbs are shown in the status bar as well. > > Thus, we need to do the same for all scripts. Any volunteers for this > > job? This should happen real soon now, because we want to enter string > > freeze for 2.4 as soon as possible. Your help would be very much > > appreciated. > > Sorry that I took so long. I have generated a patch (against 2.2.12) > which I hope is close to what was expected. Unfortunatel not. You apparently diffed between modified scripts from 2.3 and original scripts from 2.2, therefore most of the patch is bogus :( > It is available as a plain > text file at > http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs > (160kb) or available as a GZIPped file at > http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs.gz > (27kb). > > Even if I didn't completely screw it up, I imagine there will be some > discussion. I have many doubts about my wording myself. Some issues as > I see them: > > 1. There are unfortunately some changes in the patch that are not > related to the blurbs: I made these changes in order to get the > scripts to function and forgot to back out the changes when I > generated the patch. It mostly concerned the > 'gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' being deprecated and I replaced it with > 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans'. It's 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' that is deprecated, and gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' is the new function. > It also occurred when there was an > out-dated usage of "SF-COLOR" as a text string (e.g., "white"). Likewise. "white" is the new version, '(255 255 255) the old one. > I > understand that this is not proper update policy but I am not keen on > undoing something that has to eventually be done. > > 2. In a couple of places I employed the term "selection frame" in > order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask > versus those that affected the selection's contents (e.g., > 'script-fu-selection-rounded-rectangle' is described as "Round the > corners of the current selection frame"). I feel that "selection > frame" is more intuitive than "selection mask" in these contexts. But "selection mask" is the known term here. "selection frame" is imho totally unusual and will confuse people. > 3. Many scripts will operate on the non-transparent portion of the > active layer (i.e., where the alpha channel is not BLACK) if there is > nothing selected. I have termed these "alpha objects" and consistently > employed the phrase "an alpha object or selection" to describe this > situation. If a better terminology is proposed to describe this, it > should be a simple matter to change these using "sed". I'm not sure about this... > 4) I do not understand what is happening with the > 'script-fu-gap-dup-continue' portion of the patch. I only changed the > blurb but for some reason the entire file is shown as added lines. > (The patch works, I just don't understand why.) GAP scripts are not part of gimp and should be patched separately. > 5) I do not understand what is occurring with "SF-GRADIENT" in the > 'script-fu-lava' registration. Other "SF-GRADIENT"s create a gradient > selection widget while 'script-fu-lava' still presents a text-entry. > > 6) I used the word "widget" in some of the descriptions of scripts > which generate webpage components. I am comfortable with its usage in > this sense but perhaps others are not. So long as the reason for > avoiding the term "widget" has nothing to do with The Apple Company's > opprobrious attempt to usurp this otherwise ubiquitous computing term, > I am open to suggestions. :-) I haven't heared the word "widget" in the context of a web page. Actually, in GTK+ world it's pretty clearly reserved for GtkWidgets. > 7) Finally, the menu registration is per 2.2.12 and therefore the > scripts' relocation in 2.3 needs to be addressed by someone familiar > with their new locations. You marked all menu paths for translation, which is wrong. They don't need to be marked any more. Sorry, but the patch as-is is unfortunately unapplyable. What is needed is a patch against a recent 2.3 version, or preferrably CVS HEAD. ciao, --mitch _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
