On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 23:45, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 20 June 2011 21:40, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I know we've had some discussions around what to do with the Slony
>> support.. But it's there now, and IIRC the deal was we keep it.
>
> That was the deal. FWIW, I consider our Slony support to be less than
> useless, in that it is basically a GUI analogue to writing a long
> Slonik script full of apparently redundant entries.
>
>> I would, however, suggest that we rename it to actually be "slony
>> replication" rather than "replication". Or "Use slony" rather than
>> "Use replication". Calling it "replication" without qualifying it
>> causes confusion to many users (came across it with a client just
>> today, and it's not the first time).
>>
>> I realize we're fairly close to release - is this doable for 1.14, or
>> will that fsck things up for translators?
>
> +1
>
> It isn't that hard to translate a few strings into all supported
> languages. If a translator isn't available to translate those few
> strings (and they'd have to not be answering any e-mail for that to be
> the case, and it will take them less than 5 minutes), that's likely to
> be in a language that isn't so widely spoken - it certainly won't be
> French or German. I'd be willing to live with a poor machine
> translation for a little while for those languages. If someone
> complains, the complaint is likely to be all we need to fix the
> problem ourselves.
>
So, something like this. I went with calling the field inthe dialogs
"Use Slony" rather than "Use Slony replication", simply because the
second option is very long - much much longer than anything else
there, leading to a lot of wasted space.
Comments?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/