Re: Re: Status of doc migration to Git

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Hannes Magnusson < hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Hannes Magnusson > <hannes.magnusson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Maciej Sobaczewski <sobak@php.net> > wrote: > >>> - Translation statuses; we could probably insert the Git hash in > place > >>> of the SVN revision number, that doesn't show how out-of-date the file > >>> is though. Is there some other convenient way to replace the usage of > >>> EN-Revision values, with Git? How do translators use this, if at all? > >>> Do you? > >> > >> This would require rewritting whole system. The fact that revision ID's > are > > > > Thats the question I guess. > > When we move to git.. What are our options? > > > > Maybe this requirement isn't really useful for anyone. Just some > > overzealous control freak by the "system. > > > > What incremental numbers give us is see "how many revisions" a file is > > out of date.. But really? Does that really matter? > > Whops. I forgot we no longer use cvs.. Seeing how many "revisions" a > translation is out-of-date based on the revision number alone isn't > possible - it requires manual checking, or scripting, just like you > would need if you are comparing git hashes. > > The only reason why the "system" cares that its a number is because > the revision match is done as x < y, rather then x != y. > Moving to git hashes would be fine. What about a timestamp as revision number, and hash aside. It would help get diffs and show how old-of-date are the file. The expansion only need to occurs in en (via filter clean/smudge), and translations would be static. André