-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 309
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Version controlling GLOSSARY #34
Conversation
I think this is cool but not sure how it is connected with #14. this seems more like a style guide for authoring docs and not really translating them. am I missing something? |
Hey @cezaraugusto I think the main purpose of this file is let people add their own entries to the glossary and keep discussions about specific terms in the pull requests instead of the little glossary with limited access that lives in #4 now. For example, in my revisions yesterday I've stumbled upon some terms that I'm pretty sure will have at least 2-3 variations throughout the translation project. I guess that every time someone finds such terms, they should add it to the glossary and then we try to find a standard term. |
Thanks for your help but I believe most of this does not relate to the translation/project. All MD documents are well structured with examples and following a proper code style. Our goal is to provide a proper PT-BR translation without changing structure, code examples etc. I've opened #46 in order to keep track of the Glossary terms that were suggested until now in #4 . IMHO we should now aim to feed that file through discussions in separate issues/pull requests. This will make it easier to track each addition and the reasoning behind it. |
Sorry guys!! This PR came with the wrong text!! The file that went here was the previous version, a wrong copy and paste... What I wanted to PR was this: https://github.com/halian-vilela/pt-BR.reactjs.glossary As I stated here I initially thought that we couldn't add I've made some corrections to the text. I personally think that this structure is better for adding new terms under their own letters. What do you think? |
Glad you fixed the content 👍 But @gmsecrieru has already created a PR (#46) addressing the glossary issue. @halian-vilela would you mind submitting your changes there? I'm closing this in favor of #46, just to avoid two PRs addressing the same issue. |
Solved already. We'll keep the previous format. |
Bringing the GLOSSARY to the repo, as discussed in #14