On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 06:58:37 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Guillem Jover ([email protected]): > > Regarding switching the pointers for translators, we have been talking > > about doing some major cleanup of strings, in the C and perl code, > > to remove dupes, make them easier to translate, or more understandable, > > so I think it would be best if translators didn't target master for a > > while. But then we can always keep not updating the pot files until the > > strings have settled down a bit. > > Yes. But I think this should be their choice.
Well, of course! > Some of them (/me included) prefer keeping up constantly mor ethan > doing bug updates at rare moments. This malkes the work less > frightening...:-) It's just that we had in mind doing major changes, and for example there's new strings that might end up changing or getting removed or unmarked, so it would be a waste of translators time to do the job now. But then we are talking about 1 or 2 months from now, not just waiting until few weeks before squeeze release. > > So, Christian, I think it's fine to update the pointers from lenny to > > master, as long as the translators themselves do not update the pot > > files. Or do you see any problems with that? > > I think that, if we want to satisfy those translators who prefer working > at their own pace, we should update POT files (and PO files from them) > regularly, as soon as one of those "big cleanup" has happened. I > suspect they will happen in batches when either Raphaël or you (or > other ppl) merges something in the master branch. The point of not updating right now the POT files was to prevent dropping the work from translators that might not follow the development of dpkg at the moment. As long as people know the situtation and are not going to complain later on, I'm fine with anything. :) > How about having a git branch for localization and use a "dpkg" > project on pootle.debian.net for translators to work there (and there > only)? > > This way you could sync PO files of the master branch with that branch > and sync the new/modified strings back to it by updating the POT files > in master and pushing this to the l10n branch? > > I think it should be feasible to ask translators to work and update > their work in Pootle only. And, even if some still send bug reports, > those could be picked by the l10n "master" and committed through > Pootle. The idea of pootle is nice, but I'm not convinced it's the solution to all l10n related issues, it also forces people to be online, and to use a web browser instead of their editor of choice, and from this thread there's other people who'd not be happy to use it. Personally I'd have to see how such branch ends up looking like before deciding. But in general I don't like automated committing bots. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
