Reading the manual from the start, just after the intro, you see

What's New in GIMP 2.6?

Why do not clone it creating a new section

What's New in GIMP 2.8?

I think that this could be a good starting point:

http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/gimp-2-8-features-preview-april-2010

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 07:49:41AM +0200, Julien Hardelin wrote:

Le 29/04/2012 20:43, Marco Ciampa a crit :

Reading the manual from the start, just after the intro, you see

What's New in GIMP 2.6?

Why do not clone it creating a new section

What's New in GIMP 2.8?

I think that this could be a good starting point:

http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/gimp-2-8-features-preview-april-2010

Why you don't write it?

With your assistance, I can try to do it. My english is poor.
My knowledge of docbook-xml is inexistant. But I know these are excuses... I'll try.

If you don't mind I'll post here my doubts...

TIA

Marco Ciampa

+--------------------+
| Linux User  #78271 |
| FSFE fellow   #364 |
+--------------------+
_______________________________________________
gimp-docs-list mailing list
gimp-docs-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs-list

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 08:30:02AM +0200, Marco Ciampa wrote:

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 07:49:41AM +0200, Julien Hardelin wrote:

Le 29/04/2012 20:43, Marco Ciampa a crit :

Reading the manual from the start, just after the intro, you see

What's New in GIMP 2.6?

Why do not clone it creating a new section

What's New in GIMP 2.8?

I think that this could be a good starting point:

http://www.gimpusers.com/tutorials/gimp-2-8-features-preview-april-2010

Why you don't write it?

With your assistance, I can try to do it. My english is poor.
My knowledge of docbook-xml is inexistant. But I know these are excuses... I'll try.

If you don't mind I'll post here my doubts...

First of all, thanks for the encuraging messages I've received. They warm my heart.

Here we are for the questions.

1) I found that simply modifying this file

src/introduction/whats-new.xml

is easier than I though

2) I was in doubt if it was better adding a new "What's new with GIMP 2.8" leaving the old section renamed into "What was new with GIMP 2.6" but maybe is an overkill...

Please _say_ what you _all_ think about it:

You do prefer to to replace and renew the section or... You prefer adding a new section?

3) In case of a replacement, I found it useful to let the old section be accessible by web. Now there is a bug in the site, see by yourself:

http://docs.gimp.org

- there is no direct links to the on line HTML 2.6 section, there is only the 2.4 and the new WIP 2.8. The 2.6 version _is_ accessible but only manually editing the web address of your browser replacing the 2.8 like

http://docs.gimp.org/2.8/en/

into

http://docs.gimp.org/2.6/en/

4) is the web site version controlled? Why not?

it's enough for now...

Marco Ciampa

+--------------------+
| Linux User  #78271 |
| FSFE fellow   #364 |
+--------------------+
_______________________________________________
gimp-docs-list mailing list
gimp-docs-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs-list

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 05:42:44PM +0200, Kolbjørn Stuestøl wrote:

2) I was in doubt if it was better adding a new "What's new with GIMP 2.8" leaving the old section renamed into "What was new with GIMP 2.6" but maybe is an overkill...

Please _say_ what you _all_ think about it:

…
If the 2.6 documentation will be available in the future, there is no reason to repeat it in the 2.8 version. In my opinion a "What's new in 2.8" chapter will be enough. Perhaps two new chapters in appendix A instead: "What's new in 2.6?" and "What's new in 2.8?" would satisfy the curious user.

Oh my! You are right! I just need to move the whats-new in the appendix history and change its name in history-26.xml ...

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:37:02PM +0200, Marco Ciampa wrote:

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 05:42:44PM +0200, Kolbjørn Stuestøl wrote:

2) I was in doubt if it was better adding a new "What's new with GIMP 2.8" leaving the old section renamed into "What was new with GIMP 2.6" but maybe is an overkill...

Please _say_ what you _all_ think about it:

…
If the 2.6 documentation will be available in the future, there is no reason to repeat it in the 2.8 version. In my opinion a "What's new in 2.8" chapter will be enough. Perhaps two new chapters in appendix A instead: "What's new in 2.6?" and "What's new in 2.8?" would satisfy the curious user.

Oh my! You are right! I just need to move the whats-new in the appendix history and change its name in history-26.xml ...

Doing exactly this I just noted that the already translated strings in one .po file do not magically ;-) move from one file to another... (from introduction to appendix...)

I need a way to avoid to create uneeded work to other translators...how can I move all those strings for _all_ the languages .po files?

Any hint?

On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:04:34PM +0200, Ulf-D. Ehlert wrote:

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 08:52:16PM +0200, Marco Ciampa wrote: [...]

Doing exactly this I just noted that the already translated strings in one .po file do not magically ;-) move from one file to another... (from introduction to appendix...)

I need a way to avoid to create uneeded work to other translators...how can I move all those strings for _all_ the languages .po files?

There's no simple (make) command to do this, but you can try this (not tested!):

1. backup appendix.po and introduction.po ;-)

2a. try 'msgmerge' with the '--compendium=FILE' option:

$ msgmerge --quiet --width=79 \ --compendium=po/xx/introduction.po \ --output-file=po/xx/appendix.po \ po/xx/appendix.po pot/appendix.pot

and compare new and old appendix.po.

I've tried this and it is enough for me.

2b. try it with 'make' using the 'COMPENDIUM' variable:

# save introduction.po: $ cp po/xx/introduction.po po/xx/tmp-compendium.po $ make po/xx/appendix.po COMPENDIUM=tmp-compendium.po

and, once more, compare new and old appendix.po.

(Remember to always use the original (saved) appendix.po, if you try both methods.)

Why should it be different? It launch a different command?

If this works, you can do it with a simple for-loop for all languages.

It worked very well, thank you Ulf, as usual.

Done this:

#!/bin/bash

LOCREPO=/home/marco/git-gnome/gimp-help-2 LLIST="da de el es fi fr hr it ja ko lt nl nn pl ru sl sv zh_CN" POSRCS=introduction
PODEST=appendix
#MDEBUG="y"

cd $LOCREPO
pwd
for PONAT in `echo $LLIST`
do
if [ "$MDEBUG" == "y" ]; then
echo msgmerge --width=79 \
--compendium=po/${PONAT}/${POSRCS}.po \ --output-file=po/${PONAT}/${PODEST}.po \ po/${PONAT}/${PODEST}.po pot/${PODEST}.pot else
msgmerge --width=79 \
--compendium=po/${PONAT}/${POSRCS}.po \ --output-file=po/${PONAT}/${PODEST}.po \ po/${PONAT}/${PODEST}.po pot/${PODEST}.pot fi
done

I've already pushed it (hope it was all right). The new whats-new page is a work in progress and it is not complete. Feel free to add, correct, comment, and forgive my many errors, please.

PS: May I ask you a favour Ulf? Can you tell me why the command syntax is that? Why you have to specify appendix.po(t) three times?

Looking at the command manual page I would never say that I would have to put it like this.

From the man page...

man msgmrg

MSGMERGE(1) GNU MSGMERGE(1)

NAME msgmerge - merge message catalog and template

SYNOPSIS msgmerge [OPTION] def.po ref.pot ....

it seems just a 2 argument command...

TIA

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:24:00PM +0200, Ulf-D. Ehlert wrote:

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:36:09AM +0200, Marco Ciampa wrote:

PS: May I ask you a favour Ulf? Can you tell me why the command syntax is that? Why you have to specify appendix.po(t) three times?

[...]

it seems just a 2 argument command...

Copy-and-paste-and-adapt error. ;-) The command we run via 'make' uses a temporary file as output (if I remember correctly, 'msgmerge' sometimes produced an empty po file).

That could be the result of a somehow incorrect .po file parsing ... I did not see any error (lucky me ;-)

So I should have written something like

$ msgmerge ... --compendium=OLD_PO --output-file=TMP NEW_PO POT \ && cp TMP NEW_PO

But I had warned you - I didn't test it! ;-)

Well, it worked, and git is our friend... ;-)

Anyway thank you (and Julien) again for your support!

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:09:15PM +0200, Marco Ciampa wrote:

3) In case of a replacement, I found it useful to let the old section be accessible by web. Now there is a bug in the site, see by yourself:

http://docs.gimp.org

- there is no direct links to the on line HTML 2.6 section, there is only the 2.4 and older and the new WIP 2.8. The 2.6 version _is_ accessible but only manually editing the web address of your browser replacing the 2.8 like

http://docs.gimp.org/2.8/en/

into

http://docs.gimp.org/2.6/en/

4) is the web site version controlled? Why not?

it's enough for now...

Anyone has an answer?

On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 01:52:39AM +0200, Marco Ciampa wrote:

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:09:15PM +0200, Marco Ciampa wrote:

3) In case of a replacement, I found it useful to let the old section be accessible by web. Now there is a bug in the site, see by yourself:

http://docs.gimp.org

- there is no direct links to the on line HTML 2.6 section, there is only the 2.4 and older and the new WIP 2.8. The 2.6 version _is_ accessible but only manually editing the web address of your browser replacing the 2.8 like

http://docs.gimp.org/2.8/en/

into

http://docs.gimp.org/2.6/en/

4) is the web site version controlled? Why not?

it's enough for now...

Anyone has an answer?

Gosh, it is my destiny to look like a fool...

I see, the site is git controlled inside the gimp manual source...

Ok I can now reformulate che questions:

1) why in the GIMP manual site there are two series of links, one for 2.6.0, and one for 2.6.1? Why not preserving just the last?

2) why there are links to the online html pages for 2.4 but no links to the 2.6?

3) why not insert the links to the online html pages for 2.6?

4) if I do these changes, is there anyone who does not agree?

bye