Bug 138630 – [es] gentoo-x86-quickinstall.xml Update

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Doc Translations

[Description Carles Ferrer 2006-06-30 13:52:44 UTC]

Spanish translation update for gentoo-x86-quickinstall.xml

[Comment 1 Carles Ferrer 2006-06-30 14:00:21 UTC]

Created attachment 90564 [details, diff]
unified diff file for gentoo-x86-quickinstall.xml

Upgrade from ver.3 to ver.5:
- changing to emerge -vpe world instead of useless emerge -vpe
- 2.1 is stable for x86, no need to unmask it

(but, what kind of new document's numbering it is? two minor changes and we pass from 3 to 5? is it a new trend? ;) )

[Comment 2 Andres Pereira (RETIRED) 2006-06-30 15:56:27 UTC]

(In reply to comment #1)
> (but, what kind of new document's numbering it is? two minor changes and we
> pass from 3 to 5? is it a new trend? ;) )
> 

"If you are making a content change to a document (such as instructions, code examples, etc.), then you must increment the version". :)

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp/doc/doc-tipsntricks.xml#doc_chap6

[Comment 3 Carles Ferrer 2006-07-01 03:48:37 UTC]

(In reply to comment #2)
> "If you are making a content change to a document (such as instructions, code
> examples, etc.), then you must increment the version". :)
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp/doc/doc-tipsntricks.xml#doc_chap6
> 
Yes, Andr

[Comment 4 Carles Ferrer 2006-07-01 03:48:37 UTC]

(In reply to comment #2)
> "If you are making a content change to a document (such as instructions, code
> examples, etc.), then you must increment the version". :)
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp/doc/doc-tipsntricks.xml#doc_chap6
> 
Yes, Andrés. And thanks.
But this is the version numbering history of the document:
18.02.2006 - version 2.10
27.05.2006 - version 3 (with an _important_ change of contents) 
29.06.2006 - version 4 (only a minor change)
29.06.2006 - version 5 (only a minor change)
Is it normal? Is it peculiar? (But dont worry, I'm only joking :) )

[Comment 5 Jose Luis Rivero (yoswink) (RETIRED) 2006-07-06 19:51:53 UTC]

Fixed. Changes already availables.

(In reply to comment #3)
> > 
> Yes, Andr

[Comment 6 Jose Luis Rivero (yoswink) (RETIRED) 2006-07-06 19:51:53 UTC]

Fixed. Changes already availables.

(In reply to comment #3)
> > 
> Yes, Andrés. And thanks.
> But this is the version numbering history of the document:
> 18.02.2006 - version 2.10
> 27.05.2006 - version 3 (with an _important_ change of contents) 
> 29.06.2006 - version 4 (only a minor change)
> 29.06.2006 - version 5 (only a minor change)
> Is it normal? Is it peculiar? (But dont worry, I'm only joking :) )

Probably, the slave who commit the minor change after version "3" thought the schema was based on a single number so, obviously, next would be 4.

Don't worry Carles, I'll find him and will be properly punished ;)