[apparmor] More on translations (was Re: [patch] fix broken english in parser_yacc.y)

John Johansen john.johansen at canonical.com
Tue Jan 14 18:25:09 UTC 2014


On 12/09/2013 01:16 PM, Steve Beattie wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 11:49:56AM -0800, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 12/06/2013 11:22 AM, Seth Arnold wrote:
>>> What's the deal with the po/apparmor-parser.pot file? Do we need to update
>>> this file when we change the msgid strings like this? Do we need to update
>>> any translation tables anywhere else as a result of this change?
>>>
>> yes we need to regenerate the .pot files, it is not done automatically from
>> the parser directory do
>>
>>   make po/apparmor-parser.pot
> 
> I'd like to raise another issue with translations. Now that we have
> integrated with launchpad's translations service, I'd like to merge
> changes from there back in to trunk, especially since it looks like
> Christian and Kshitij are contributing translations via launchpad :).
> 
> I currently have the launchpad integration committing changes
> automatically to the bzr branch
> 
>   https://code.launchpad.net/~apparmor-dev/apparmor/launchpad-translations-branch
> 
> (I didn't want to let it automatically commit to trunk.)
> 
> In particular, the initial changes launchpad made in rewriting back
> the .po files are are rather large. Attempting to review these via
> the list I think would be unwieldy at best.
> 
> I'd like to have the group's consensus that changes made via launchpad
> should be treated as a patch submission, and that a reviewer with
> commit access should be able to merge these changes to trunk, without
> needing to go to the list (obviously, the list is available should
> specific questions arise). And of course, it would be on the person
> doing the merge to review the changes to confirm that they're sane,
> to the extant possible without having knowledge of the languages
> in question.
> 
> I ask, because translations people have made fixes and I would like
> to get them incorporated into trunk, and so I want to move on getting
> the two trees in sync.
> 
> Are people okay with this? Is there another way we should handle this?
> 

It sounds good to me




More information about the AppArmor mailing list