Re: Re: phpdoc /fr bookinfo.xml

eschmid+sic@s.netic.de wrote: > On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 04:55:14PM +0200, Hojtsy Gábor wrote: > > >> So we have a $Revision tag in the english file, showing the actual > > >> english version number. We can have a comment in the translated > > >> version, about what english version number it corresponds to. This > > >> way you can do a diff with these two versions, and see what needs > > >> to be modified/added in the translated file. I think it just > > >helps much. > > >> I can't understand what is your problem with this? > > > > > >I can´t see your point. The information what have been > > >modified/added is > > >in cvs.php.net. A revision tag is IMHO useless. > > > > Let's imagine, you start translating mysql.xml. This is not > > a small file, so you can't complete it in a day. You copy > > the mysql.xml file yourself to a separate directory, as > > you probably won't follow the modifications in the mysql.xml > > file as you translate, because the translation takes weeks. > > One week later, when you again have time to translate, you can > > see the $Revision tag in the copied english file, while the > > one in CVS is newer, so your point of what you are translating > > would be lost. > > We have some translations from May 2000. The only possibility to get this > translation into sync with the English version is, compare the file > modification time with the revisions in cvs.php.net till that time and > make all modifications since that time. One revision tag is IMHO still > useless. Exactly that's the the wrong way. If the change in May 2000 was only a typo, you might get a big hole if you check only the en-changes from that date till now. Only a check from the revision in the discussed comment till now will be complete. And only if all versions from that comment are updated till a certain version, the comment should be changed (meaning not only for a typo). --Tom