The revision you can use to compile the locale builds is 18401. This one is taken from svn tag.
Tagged: revision Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
suscov
-
suscov
You can use rev. 18043 to compile the builds.
-
Stas Sușcov
-
Andrew Nacin
Ideally you should build off the tag, never branches, and only trunk when doing a build for a beta or RC candidate.
-
Stas Sușcov
Hmm, I don’t see any difference.
-
-
Gabriel Reguly
Thanks for clarifying it Nancin.
Just to make it double checked, you are talking about the following, right?
http://core.trac.wordpress.org/browser/tags
So for 3.1.3, it is 18044, correct?
-
-
frilyd
Referring to this post: today I tried building nn_NO from Rosetta without using revision numbers (project 3.1 and 3.1.x). I get an error message (“invalid revision”). That probably means that I have to look up revision numbers every time I want to build a new nn_NO release, which is a slight annoyance and a source of error. Why do I have to do it?
More seriously, the current nn_NO translations are broken, although all strings in translate.wordpress.org are translated. Scrutiny reveals that all strings the .po files in an update, and in a fresh download, are fully translated. The .mo files, on the other hand, contain only 828 translations. There is something wrong, and I can’t find out what. I’d be thankful if anyone would care to look at nn.wordpress.org. and examine the language files to confirm the problem, and find out how I get fully translated .mo files.
-
frilyd
Further investigation: Building from dist file branch “trunk” gives wrong .mo files, while building from branch “tags/3.0” gives correct (or at least better) .mo files. I eagerly await the codex file about releasing localised builds. I thought I knew this, but now I am in doubt about what really is the correct procedure for releasing localised builds.
-
frilyd are discussing. 
frilyd
In the good old days (some months ago), we didn’t have to use revision numbers when releasing new localised WordPress versions. I’ll be blunt: Why do we have to use revision numbers? It’s a source of errors and some frustration. Can’t we go back to the way it was before?
Zé, and 2 others are discussing. -
Xavier
I’ve never had to do that. Revision numbers are for those who cannot wait for the building tool to feature the real version number, methinks.
-
Peter
So you always use “HEAD”, or what?
-
frilyd
I tried (around the release of 3.1, I think) to just use the automatic values. That gave me 3.2-bleeding, in en_US, which is not what I want. Later, I released using revision numbers, which has sort of worked until now. Lately, users have reported that they can’t update to the new nn_NO version from the dashboard. My last release was according to https://wppolyglots.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/you-can-use-revision-17712-to-compile-your/#comment-2218 .
I’ll try to release without revision numbers, and see what happens. If it ruins my test installation, I’ll delete that release.
-
Zé
Remember that you don’t need to release to test, you can download an unreleased build from the dashboard.
-
frilyd
That of course is an alternative. I can try that first, and then (if it works) release it and see if it also works via dashboard upgrading. Thanks. Will report back.
-
suscov
You can use revision 17712 to compile your builds.
-
Stas Sușcov
Sorry, wrong copy/cat: use
17486-
Stas Sușcov
Nah, it’s ok. You can delete these comments. The wine from gsoc announcements didn’t go away 🙂
-
-
Gabriel Reguly
Hmm, why not 17716?
Please see http://core.trac.wordpress.org/browser/tags
-
Stas Sușcov
Both should work, though the revision you mentioned is the tagging revision, not the commit itself.
-
WP Polyglots 
Stas Sușcov 6:38 pm on July 5th, 2011 Permalink |
Hmm, in fact it’s
18397. Double checked now.