Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@xxxxxxx> writes: > On 11/21/22 3:13 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >> Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Translate Documentation/process/coding-style.rst into Spanish. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Bilbao <carlos.bilbao@xxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../translations/sp_SP/coding-style.rst | 1315 +++++++++++++++++ >>> Documentation/translations/sp_SP/index.rst | 1 + >>> 2 files changed, 1316 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/translations/sp_SP/coding-style.rst >> >> So I'm kind of slow, I'll admit...but I have finally noticed that you're >> not preserving the directory structure used for Documentation/ as a >> whole. Is there a reason for that? We've been (slowly) working to >> organize our docs in a reader-friendly way, it seems unfortunate to lose >> that for the translations...? > > Yes, you're correct. The order I was following was: "If I didn't speak > English, what document would _I_ like to see translated next?". The coding > style directives seemed to me like the most important thing next in line. > Following this logic, I was planning on translating > process/email-clients.rst next. > > What would be better? Perhaps the documents of process/ in order of > appearance? I don't know what would be preferable in terms of organization. > Perhaps we have some data on most consulted docs for the Documentation > website? I think I didn't express myself clearly...I don't really care about the order in which you do the translations, whatever you think is best is fine there. What I was asking about is the *directory structure* of the results. Thus, for example, I think that this translation should end up in .../sp_SP/process/coding-style.rst. See what I'm getting at? The directory structure of the translations should really match that of the documents they are coming from. Or, at least, so it seems to me. Thanks, jon
