similar to: Translations using Weblate

We are migrating to Weblate (the Fedora instance, in particular) for translations instead of Zanata. Adapt our tooling a bit to the different workflow: - Weblate takes care of updating the po files whenever a new translation catalog is available, so stop doing that on our own: this meant also tweaking the po4a usage for POD documentations, resulting in simpler rules (IMHO) - ensure that the

Run a msgmerge of the translations with the up-to-date template. Do it manually before adding virt-v2v to Weblate, so we can edit them (e.g. removing the obsolete messages, which are largely from libguestfs sources). --- This patch was truncated for mailing list posting. Originally it was ~13M. po-docs/cs.po | 3960 +- po-docs/de.po | 9299 +--- po-docs/en_GB.po | 62274

We are migrating to Weblate (the Fedora instance, in particular) for translations instead of Zanata. Adapt our tooling a bit to the different workflow: - Weblate takes care of updating the po files whenever a new translation catalog is available, so stop doing that on our own: this meant also tweaking the po4a usage for POD documentations, resulting in simpler rules (IMHO) - ensure that the

Hi, Ruby-GetText-Package-1.93.0 is now available. Changes ------- * Bulgarian added. * Estonian updated. * French updated. * Japanese updated. * np_, npgettext support. * Fixed bugs. - detect the correct charset on POSIX OS. - updatepo task works again on Windows OS(with broken GNU msgmerge). - Remove BOM from po-files before GNU msgmerge is executed. (GNU msgmerge

Use a LINGUAS file with the list of available translations instead of defining them in a make variable. This way Weblate will be able to update the list using an available addon, and we do not need to list those not built. Accordingly, rename the variable with built languages to 'linguas_translated'. Signed-off-by: Pino Toscano <ptoscano@redhat.com> --- po-docs/LINGUAS | 12

On Thursday, 13 August 2020 12:20:01 CEST Pino Toscano wrote: > Use a LINGUAS file with the list of available translations instead of > defining them in a make variable. This way Weblate will be able to > update the list using an available addon, and we do not need to list > those not built. > > Accordingly, rename the variable with built languages to >

The GnuCash development team announces GnuCash 5.6, the seventh release in the stable 5.x series. Between 5.5 and 5.6, the following bugfixes were accomplished: Bug 798946 - start/end of current/last quarter have off-by-one error Bug 799093 - Cannot reconcile since v5.4 Bug 799179 - SLR won't allow change from "Reminder" to any other state Bug 799210 - Bad encoding

We migrated to Weblate, and Zanata is being decommissioned. --- Makefile.am | 4 +--- docs/guestfs-hacking.pod | 14 -------------- zanata-pull.sh | 30 ------------------------------ zanata.xml | 8 -------- 4 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 55 deletions(-) delete mode 100755 zanata-pull.sh delete mode 100644 zanata.xml diff --git a/Makefile.am

The GnuCash development team announces GnuCash 5.8, the ninth release in the stable 5.x series. This is a snap releae to fix a serious bug in GnuCash 5.8. Between 5.7 and 5.8, the following bugfixes were accomplished: ? Bug 799347 - Edit account to make it sub account under other account There were no other changes. New and Updated Translations: Chinese (Traditional), Hebrew, Hungarian,

The GnuCash development team announces GnuCash 5.3, the fourth release in the stable 5.x series. This is a snap release to fix the bug listed below. Between 5.2 and 5.3, the following bugfixes were accomplished: ? Bug 798967 - Cannot Save to Any Path After Upgrading to 5.2 Fix inverted if statement condition for save success flag The following fixes and improvements were not associated with bug

The GnuCash development team announces GnuCash 5.9, the tenth release in the stable 5.x series. Between 5.8 and 5.9, the following bugfixes were accomplished: ? Bug 724745 - Added new transaction during reconcile, didn't show up in reconcile window. ? Bug 797045 - Improve error reporting for bad credentials with MySQL backend ("bad or corrupt data" => "access denied")

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd <bex at pobox.com> wrote: > Hi Lei, > > Hi, I am Kunaal the other GSoC student working on this toolchain. > On Jun 20, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Lei Yang <yltt1234512 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am sorry it has taken me so long to test this workflow. > Thanks a lot! We need testers and input from community.

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab. > > You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by > definition compares your working copy against master. > > This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental > development. For

The GnuCash development team announces GnuCash 4.14, the fifteenth and final release in the stable 4.x series. Between 4.13 and 4.14, the following bugfixes were accomplished: Bug 797477 - Manual foreign transaction from APAR to another doesn't trigger price input Bug 797725 - Untranslatable string "For Period Covering ~a to ~a" Bug 797903 - Transaction window: The

The GnuCash development team announces GnuCash 5.10, the eighth release in the stable 5.x series. Between 5.9 and 5.10, the following bugfixes were accomplished: Bug 798789 - Trading Accounts Bug 799283 - Segfault/Crash if payment dialog change from customer to vendor Bug 799420 - gnucash 5.8 crashes on windows 10 while importing qif Bug 799423 - Crash when creating ETF transaction

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real. Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to

On 6/22/20 2:34 AM, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab. > > You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request > by definition compares your working

How much ongoing work do you estimate Phabracitor requires? There’s the times the server falls over (e.g. database exceptions) and needs to be revived, there’s updates to Phabricator itself, there’s keeping the server updated, and probably a bunch of other work I’m not thinking of. About how much of a time commitment would keeping Phabricator going be, in your estimation? From: llvm-dev

Am 25.02.2016 um 14:41 schrieb Renato Golin: > On 25 February 2016 at 12:46, Joachim Durchholz via llvm-dev >> What workflow are you comparing this to, if a pull request is a penalty? > > Today, 100s of people commit directly. Ah. I wasn't aware of that, I thought LLVM had a gatekeeper model. > In a GitHub style, 100s of > people will have to wait for a merge from a few

On Apr 21, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > > Hi guys, I can't help noticing that many PRs seem good to go merged in NUT, so these improvements can either benefit the users instantly, or get exposed to more real-life testing and prove their worth or find issues to fix ;) > > Are there any objections to going on a merging-spree, and boost the morale of external contributors