Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:31:07 +0100 From: Benedict Reuschling <bcr@FreeBSD.org> To: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-doc-projects@FreeBSD.org, doc-committers@FreeBSD.org, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r40831 - in projects/ISBN_1-57176-407-0/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook: . preface Message-ID: <5109911B.8050503@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130130205409.GK1402@glenbarber.us> References: <201301301901.r0UJ1YY6051367@svn.freebsd.org> <51096FC6.2000205@FreeBSD.org> <20130130205409.GK1402@glenbarber.us>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 30.01.13 21:54, schrieb Glen Barber: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:08:54PM +0100, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: >> Em 30-01-2013 20:01, Benedict Reuschling escreveu: >>> Author: bcr Date: Wed Jan 30 19:01:33 2013 New Revision: 40831 >>> URL:http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/doc/40831 >>> >>> Log: Deactivate the build of the PGP Keys section from the >>> appendix. This will not be part of the print edition, but will >>> still be kept in the online version. >> Are you sure that this is the best way of doing this? This will >> make merges more difficult. I don't know if it has been discussed >> somewhere but I'd prefer a single-source solution. We could add a >> custom profiling attribute for online or print-only chunks. >> > > As a more immediate solution, what if we use something like this > for changes that should not be merged back to head/ ? > > MFC after: none > Rather MTC ("to" instead of "from" head), from the perspective of the branch that is. ;) We could do that. It requires going through each individual commit made to the branch when merging it back and figure out what to do with it depending on the commit message. It also does not put any pressure on translators. With the attribute solution (which I'm also in favour of) that Gabor proposed (condition="online" vs. condition="print"), these need to be put into translations as well, without having an immediate (visual) benefit for translations. To reduce the actual work of doing changes in the translated versions (except bumping revisions), the commit message approach is cleaner. That is, if we decide to translate the printed version. But when merging them back to the online handbook, translators would have to pick them up and integrate them. However, I'm also seeing that Gabor's solution is a more programatical way (using XSLT) of dealing with the problem, which also has its benefits. I'm undecided at the moment, I guess extra work for either side (translators or people doing the merges) is unavoidable. Benedict -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEJkRsACgkQTSZQLkqBk0jXmgCg0sopbur6kW8/vizZsylJ5yCo EgEAoIddKXhxofSQcaK8bsn2tybpioOY =P2kr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5109911B.8050503>