Re: What autogenerated documentation to translate

[Federico Bruni]

Hi Jean

I agree with all the points made by Jonas.
I would limit the contents to be translated to the minimum (the 
appendixes of NR). Translating and keeping up-to-date the LilyPond 
documentation is already a big commitment, especially for a "one man 
team" (as most translators nowadays). Users who can program can also 
understand English.


On Mon, Jan 10 2022 at 20:08:09 +0100, Jonas Hahnfeld via Discussions 
on LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org> wrote:
> Am Montag, dem 10.01.2022 um 01:47 +0100 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:
> >  Hello,
> >
> >  Suppose I submitted a change allowing to translate
> >  autogenerated documentation via PO files (likely not
> >  this week because I already have syntax highlighting
> >  on my plate, but this discussion can already happen now).
>
> Regardless of what is translated, a quick comment on the *how*: In my
> opinion, this shouldn't be done in the "runtime" translation files in
> po/. There's a separate set of files in Documentation/po/ that are 
> also
> used for translation of the snippets.

That's what I also thought when reading your email.

I think there are many useless strings in that POT file. For example, 
the translation of node names is already handled in the texinfo files 
and shouldn't be duplicated in the PO files. Here's an example from 
it.po:

#. @node in Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely
#. @subsection in Documentation/learning/fundamental.itely
msgid "Score is a (single) compound musical expression"
msgstr ""


And when I look at the git history I see that we didn't notice a wrong 
catalan patch some years ago which deleted most of the lilypond-doc.pot 
lines:
git log -p Documentation/po/lilypond-doc.pot

Probably the POT file should not be tracked in git and we should update 
the PO files, checking what we want to keep and what should be removed.
The Makefile in Documentation/po has not been updated to the new dir 
structure.