From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94A911FF136 for ; Mon, 18 May 2026 13:37:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A35DFE9E6; Mon, 18 May 2026 13:37:48 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 13:37:14 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-i18n] update Italian translations To: "Thomas Lamprecht" , "Gabriel Goller" , "Christian Ebner" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260518100431.130663-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <5fb66de2-3cb0-4bb0-a0ac-5001d5135992@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <5fb66de2-3cb0-4bb0-a0ac-5001d5135992@proxmox.com> From: "Shannon Sterz" X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1779104222201 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.115 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 7XLNYYZRQ3SLQ6OC3VEX62EARLMMWQSX X-Message-ID-Hash: 7XLNYYZRQ3SLQ6OC3VEX62EARLMMWQSX X-MailFrom: s.sterz@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Mon May 18, 2026 at 1:18 PM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 18.05.26 um 13:14 schrieb Shannon Sterz: >>>> #: pve-manager/www/manager6/sdn/PrefixListPanel.js:129 >>>> #: pve-manager/www/manager6/sdn/PrefixListPanel.js:282 >>>> -#, fuzzy >>>> msgid "No prefix list configured" >>>> -msgstr "Nessun destinatario configurato" >>>> +msgstr "Nessuna lista di prefisso configurata" >>> I think it would be better to keep the english name here: >>> >>> "Nessuna prefix list configurata" >>> >>> If not, we should at least use the plural "prefissi". >>> >> quick question since i did pretty much the same for the german >> translation (Pr=C3=A4fixliste): should we also keep the english "prefix = list" >> there. also, i assume keeping "route map" instead of trying to translate >> it, is also preferable? >> >> not sure what is commonly used in german in this context. let me know >> and i'll update the translations there. thanks! > > > As it's a SDN term it might be indeed better to keep it as is, but not to > strong feelings here. If we keep it, or maybe in any case, we probably > should want to add translator context to the use sites then though. yep makes sense, since gabriel also argued in favor of keeping it, i'll send patches updating the german translation later today. adding translation notes makes sense too, we'll see what i can do there. thanks!