Technical support > FAQ

How to submit text modifications?

(1/1)

Rodmar:
Hello,

Having reviewed UFOpaedia French translation, thus having appreciated the English text from an outsider's point of view, I'd have modification suggestions for a few .po English entries (v2.5 file), either typo corrections, disambiguation, tech/sci developments or corrections, or more lore-related proposals (mainly about self-consistency).

I intend to suggest them all as a feature request on Bugtracker, and I'd like to know what would be the best format for the joint file:

* a special .po file with all corresponding entries marked as "dubious translations" (bold, yellow, easy to sort out text), full suggested English text in place of the translated text, and a short comment to give some reason why the proposals;
* a text file with only MSGID#, '--' line, '++' line, and a short reason why;
* a spreadsheet with 4 columns ans same infos as above.
* no need for a feature request on Bugtracker, just report them on the forum.
I guess that first format would allow for fast copy and paste but the suggested modification could be "lost" in the middle of an otherwise untouched long text.

Of course, if typos are fast to be checked and corrected, some other proposals should imply some decision process from the Team. Also, the proposals are not intended to be adopted as a whole; as they are only suggestions, the purpose of them is more to trigger a reflexion about the English text than to teach the truth.

geever:
I vote for the 2nd, on the tracker. We need to change source texts in the code - as we generate the po and pot files automatically from the code.

2.5... is getting old. I'm actually looking more into figuring out what still need to be done for 2.6 and work on those items - it shouldn't be too much (fingers crossed). We can fix issues in 2.5 but I don't know if we plan a 2.5.1 release. Are we?

Thanks.
-geever

DarkRain:
Yes option 2 please, that should also make it easier to fix them in 2.6 as well.

@geever
At this point I had assumed that 2.5.1 would go the same way 2.4.1 did.

geever:
Well, there is no 2.4.1 release, so probably :)

-geever

Navigation

[0] Message Index