docs(i18n): fix cp commands to avoid duplicate files

[Rudra-Tiwari-codes]

Pre-flight checklist

• I have read the Contributing Guidelines on pull requests.
• If this is a code change: I have written unit tests and/or added dogfooding pages to fully verify the new behavior.
• If this is a new API or substantial change: the PR has an accompanying issue (closes cp commands in i18n tutorial create duplicate file (recursing AND globbing) #11158) and the maintainers have approved on my working plan.

Motivation

Fixes #11158

The cp commands in the i18n tutorial use both -r (recursive) AND ** (glob pattern), which causes duplicate files in some shells where the glob expands all files in subdirectories before the recursive copy runs.

For example, cp -r docs/** results in:

api/file1.md type/file2.md file1.md file2.md

Instead of just the directory structure.

Test Plan

• Verified the syntax cp -r docs/. is POSIX-compliant and works correctly
• The /. syntax copies directory contents recursively without relying on shell globbing
• No duplicate files are created with this approach

Test links

Deploy preview: https://deploy-preview-____--docusaurus-2.netlify.app/docs/i18n/tutorial#translate-markdown-files

Related issues/PRs

Closes #11158

Note: Previous PRs #11450 and #11471 attempted to fix this but were closed because the contributors did not sign the CLA.

[netlify]

✅ [V2]

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c4c7599
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/docusaurus-2/deploys/694f2d93c23e000007186def
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-11634--docusaurus-2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[fransafu]

Warning: This author is forking multiple ML projects such as google-deepmind/alphafold, ml-explore/mlx, openai/CLIP, pytorch/pytorch, tensorflow/tensorflow, anthropics/claude-code, vllm-project/vllm, and others, adding minimal "contributions" (often for tests or miscellaneous changes) without proper validation. A review of their commits shows mostly local implementations of TODOs copied from existing projects, with little to no substantive review or testing.

So far, this author has forked 41 repositories following the same pattern. Be careful when accepting this PR. It’s also concerning how this author is able to submit PRs across four repositories in the same day, each requiring large context, which strongly suggests a highly automated workflow.

[Rudra-Tiwari-codes]

Thank you for the feedback regarding my recent activity. I am a student and I have been using these smaller tasks as a way to familiarize myself with the architecture of various codebases. I was not aware that submitting multiple minor pull requests was considered disruptive to the maintainer workflow or seen as contribution padding. I appreciate the correction and will pay much closer attention to the impact of my work moving forward. I am closing this pull request now to focus on delivering more substantive technical contributions that provide genuine value to the community.