Обсуждение: Missing French backend translations in the HEAD
Hello Peter, backend/po/fr.po had 99% translations done for 7.4, and nos it is totally missing for the current CVS tip (it is in the Attic)....mmmm... why? Most of those messasge are still applicable to the current, no? Commit message from you from 2 weeks ago says: 2 weeks petere branches: 1.1.2; file fr.po was initially added on branch REL7_4_STABLE. http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/src/backend/po/Attic/ I don't understad it and the reasons for the file to be removed. As a consequence it is also missing in the current translation status table. -- Serguei A. Mokhov | /~\ The ASCII Computer Science Department | \ / Ribbon Campaign Concordia University | X Against HTML Montreal, Quebec, Canada | / \ Email!
Serguei A. Mokhov wrote: > backend/po/fr.po had 99% translations done for 7.4, and nos it is > totally missing for the current CVS tip (it is in the > Attic)....mmmm... why? Most of those messasge are still applicable to > the current, no? Commit message from you from 2 weeks ago says: The file has only ever existed in the 7.4 branch, because it was submitted as postgres-7.4.po.bz2. I think the log messages are a CVS artifact. If Guillaume wants, I can also put the 7.4 PO file in the head branch. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:51:52 +0200 > > Serguei A. Mokhov wrote: > > backend/po/fr.po had 99% translations done for 7.4, and nos it is > > totally missing for the current CVS tip (it is in the > > Attic)....mmmm... why? Most of those messasge are still applicable to > > the current, no? Commit message from you from 2 weeks ago says: > > The file has only ever existed in the 7.4 branch, because it was > submitted as postgres-7.4.po.bz2. So? It is still valid in most part for 8.0. The parts that are not, won't do any bad. > I think the log messages are a CVS artifact. If Guillaume wants, I can > also put the 7.4 PO file in the head branch. I was surpirsed not finding it there, actually, when everything else is there. I need sometimes the French localized messages, that's why I brought it up. Guillaume? (BTW, does a fr_CA version of it have a chance of being accepted? French here (in Canada) is still a bit different with its own specifics. Spelling-wise, the most notable difference is having CAPS with accents where fr_FR normally doesn't have (for corresponding lowercase accented letters) and spacing. Maybe a bit of terminology as well, but I don't have an example handy). Of course, you can start making an argument of then should we create en_BR, pt, es_MX, etc, but.. any comment?). -- Serguei A. Mokhov | /~\ The ASCII Computer Science Department | \ / Ribbon Campaign Concordia University | X Against HTML Montreal, Quebec, Canada | / \ Email!
> (BTW, does a fr_CA version of it have a chance of being accepted? French > here (in Canada) is still a bit different with its own specifics. > Spelling-wise, the most notable difference is having CAPS with accents > where fr_FR normally doesn't have (for corresponding lowercase accented > letters) and spacing. Maybe a bit of terminology as well, but I don't have > an example handy). Of course, you can start making an argument of then > should we create en_BR, pt, es_MX, etc, but.. any comment?). en_BR would be cool, then I don't have to put up with all that American spelling :) Chris
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> en_BR would be cool, then I don't have to put up with all that American
> spelling :)
I thought you'd be looking for en_OZ ...
regards, tom lane
>>en_BR would be cool, then I don't have to put up with all that American >>spelling :) > > > I thought you'd be looking for en_OZ ... en_AU, but it's exactly the same as EN_BR, so that's fine :) Chris
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
>>> en_BR would be cool, then I don't have to put up with all that American
>>> spelling :)
>>
>> I thought you'd be looking for en_OZ ...
> en_AU, but it's exactly the same as EN_BR, so that's fine :)
Oh, just the pronunciation that's different then?
regards, tom lane
PS: just teasing of course
> Oh, just the pronunciation that's different then? Y're rite cobber, c'mon ofer here and check a prawin on tha barbie, mate! > PS: just teasing of course Of course :) I could make fun of Americans, but where do you start? :)
Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2004 04:34 schrieb Christopher Kings-Lynne: > en_BR would be cool, then I don't have to put up with all that American > spelling :) It would be en_GB (BR = Brazil), but by all means, feel free to do it. The "market" would certainly be large enough. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Am Mittwoch, 11. August 2004 00:01 schrieb Serguei A. Mokhov: > So? It is still valid in most part for 8.0. The parts that are not, won't > do any bad. I think at the time I thought that a 7.5 version was going to be sent soon thereafter. Anyway, I've put the 7.4 file in the head branch now. > (BTW, does a fr_CA version of it have a chance of being accepted? I have no problem with that. Are you, however, going to be able to maintain it? I think it would be better in these situations in general if you somehow manage to set it up so that the "fr" files serve as fallback and the "fr_CA" only need to contain the few differences. I don't know offhand how to do that, but maybe the gettext tools support this already. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Tom Lane wrote: >Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes: > > >>en_BR would be cool, then I don't have to put up with all that American >>spelling :) >> >> > >I thought you'd be looking for en_OZ ... > > > > $ LANG=en_OZ initdb Stone the bloody crows, mate! Where's yer PGDATA? Don't come the raw prawn with me! Avavnuthta go. $ :-) andrew