Re: Re: Status of doc migration to Git

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:06 PM, André L F S Bacci <andrebacci.listas@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 of the SVN revision number, that doesn't show how out-of-date the file 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 out of date..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 translation is out-of-date based on the revision number alone isn't 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. The automatic-expansion is the problem. git doesn't have reserved keywords like cvs/svn. -Hannes