httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Gruno <>
Subject Re: Retiring translations
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:05:01 GMT
On 28-03-2012 16:57, Rich Bowen wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 10:53 AM, André Malo wrote:
>> On Wednesday 28 March 2012 15:33:01 Rich Bowen wrote:
>>> I'd like to propose that we retire (ie, svn delete) translations in 2.4
>>> that are more than, say, 2 years out of date, as they assuredly don't
>>> reflect the current state of things, and do a disservice to our 
>>> customers.
>>> Leaving them in trunk seems harmless, but having them in a released 
>>> product
>>> is misleading.
>>> I haven't yet done the actual poking around to determine which 
>>> translations
>>> that would be, but I'd suspect .ja, .ko, .es and .de?
>>> Or we could be more selective, and get rid of translations of things
>>> (authnz, logging, proxy) that we know for certain has radically 
>>> changed in
>>> the last few years, while leaving things like the index files that may
>>> still be worthwhile.
>> My (unbacked) guess is, that the out-of-dateness is mostly missing 
>> directives
>> and otherwise tweaks here and there. I'd rather adjust the xslt to 
>> include a
>> (translated) reference to the english directive docs as a 
>> placeholder. That
>> way we don't lose the rest (which may or maybe not accurate).
> As always, your much greater skill with xslt would be greatly 
> appreciated here, if you'd be willing to make that adjustment. That 
> sounds like a good idea. It does make it harder to know, however, 
> which changes were *fixes* and which changes were *updates*, when it 
> comes to saying that a particular doc is or is not out of date.
> --
> Rich Bowen
> <> :: @rbowen
> <>
That's exactly what I'm worried about - that the links etc might be 
fixed (blame me for that), but the context isn't up to date. An example 
could be a description of what is default behavior, and that behavior 
could have changed, so simply changing fx a link to Require would pretty 
much ruin the documentation if the context referred to the 2.2 version 
of Require but linked to the 2.4 methods.

I think a better way would be to advise people that these documents are 
going to be retired, and give them a period of, let say a month, to get 
them up to date, otherwise they will be retired. Surely, if all the doc 
needs is a tweak here and there, it's possible to manage this without 
having to resort to complex XSLT transformations that may or may not 
mess up the context instead of fixing something.

With regards,

View raw message