[translations] Re: Where to merge Translations now? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lilynet.net/translations Archives
]
- To: Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: [translations] Re: Where to merge Translations now?
- From: Francisco Vila <paconet.org@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 12:09:09 +0200
- Cc: Graham Percival <graham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LilyPond-Devel list <lilypond-devel@xxxxxxx>, Translations list at lilynet <translations@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=uZ3j+LW2YSMNelNRVNdE5/suAi3BJEAAMQF6ApgG4ZE=; b=FGR7yCDVPRvfZPzssc9Fs5z8lO4d+oxPyUWkUKQeSNfX4bM7gV1NAGfaAOk5q6i95n awz8NA1SQaIVv3cCaYzEukagLkC5avPD9hsJHpCfKrtW4oABpnGbc48X1fJYOGHGl478 yzPBN+bu06YXYhuNy7tsFptAvStXE37wDTyTo=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=UcZbrS1IlPuAWLMLRZBIUC6SVEgUXWSN1+Jc2ZoglxQna3XUZ8UWdWp55xR3Zs0M9Z CFWpTz0w84frTpYYb59x1HdcoAy7u3S+LBrx6OrzHlC8JJ9GhPrH60GUGRuIWP3LpcUA Do4meUQpAvWzzRLlTE7niKS3rrvzFmx+K0OtU=
2011/5/3 Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>:
> On 5/3/11 5:45 AM, "Francisco Vila" <paconet.org@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 2011/5/3 Francisco Vila <paconet.org@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Hello, I have noticed that master is now 2.15; we on the
>>> lilypond/translation branch have unmerged work and more is to come.
>>> If master is now 2.15, what's the official mechanism planned for
>>> incorporate latest translations to the upcoming 2.12 stable?
>>
>> A possible solution is that I merge into master(2.15) as usual but I
>> make a list of commits for Carl to cherry-pick them onto 2.14 . Sounds
>> right?
>
> I would recommend that translators work from stable/2.14, rather than from
> master.
>
> I'm perfectly willing to have translation patches pushed to stable/2.14.
Thanks. Previously I need to know exactly which commit is to be
considered the first one to be backported.
We have a stable/2.14 branch which also contains 2.13.60 and 2.13.61 tags.
Then, we have master and there is lilypond/translation branch on which
'master' has been frequently merged. The other way, ie merge
translation onto master is not clearly marked as such, maybe because
of my usual order of commands. I sometimes merge master onto
lilypond/translation, check translations status, then checkout master
and merge lilypond/translation onto it. This sequence produces no
merge commit in master, other than previous merge master onto
lilypond/translation which comes from lilypond/translation branch.
Sorry if it sounds confusing. To summarize, it is difficult to know
which exact translations come before or after the fork. IMHO a good
thing would have been to fork a new stable/2.14/translation branch
from stable/2.14 at the same time stable/2.14 was created; that way we
would know where we are.
Could we still create a stable translation branch and work on it? I
can not work on a single branch (our current lilypond/translation) as
if it were two branches (stable translation + 2.15 translation), and
that's the current landscape.
I could take care of porting commits from the current
lilypond/translation to stable/2.14/translation for my own. Any bug
in this branch could never be considered a critical regression,
therefore it would not block stable releases, so this kind of
backporting is not very critical.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com