[Targnum-editing] Re: reviewer comments

[ZMan ZMan]

the duke wrote:

> Hi Moran
> (This mail is also sent to the TarGNUm editors list for the skeletons.)
>
> Here are my reviewer's comments on the manifesto , plus a skeleton for 
> an aditor comments report, and a skeleton for reviewer's comments.
> these last two are needed so it will be easy to see the 
> editing/reviewing details. these are first versions, if you think 
> something should be added/changed, let me know.
>
> two more comments:
>
> 1) use tar.gz format, not Zip, as it is proprietary and deprecated by 
> GNU.
> for tar.zg you can do it using cygwin, or any DOS port of gtar you can 
> find.

nope.
i'm not gonna use cygwin even though i have it installed. (i won't even 
install WinACE or ala, even though it have .tgz support out of the box)
i'm gonna use Zip as long as i'm on windos as i know that free (as both 
in freedom, and in free beer) implementations of it for free OSes do exist.
well, gnu deprecate the usage of prop. OSes at all, may they tell you to 
reject some of my translations because of this ? anyway now i have not 
much choice, as i'm waiting for a new hard-drive to "land" as a 
replacement to an old one that have been sold (my beloved gnu/linux was 
on it !).

> 2) all fixes that the reviewer does (except for very basic typos) has 
> to be written in the comments, so that if the editor doesn't agree 
> with them he won't have to use them, since he can't find them. 
> actually the reviewer doesn't have to fix the document, he can just 
> write comments.
>
> in case of consistant disagreement you can share the problem with 
> others editors using the targnum-editing list (see the TarGNUm 
> savannah page). in case that doesn't solve the problem, the 
> coordinator can be asked to give the final decision (that's why there 
> is a coordinator). 

and that relates to... ?
anyway i suggest using diff as a tool for *both* reviewers and editors, 
so they can show diff's output as the "log" of their work, what do you 
think ?

> -----
> Notice that although the second comment below, I put online the 
> reviewed version, since the changes I made has to do with standards, 
> and those that have no standards, were only commented on, but not 
> changed. in case you disagree with any of the changes, let me know, 
> and we'll see if they should be undone.
>
> Being also the translator eliminated comments on phrasing, so I would 
> rather a third person to also do a review.

that's what i call a decent administration.
kudos ! :)

> That's all,
> what's your next document? (preferably for editing, rather than 
> translation)

hmm... should i just pick up what that's without an editor ?

> salut!
>     the duke