On 2 June 2013 15:37, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > On 31/05/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > >> On 5/31/13 12:34 PM, janI wrote: >> >>> My suggestion is clear: add terminology, and request the reveiw function >>> to >>> be used (meaning that a language need to have passed the review, and >>> warnings have been controlled, in order to be released). >>> >> A good idea and we should indeed work towards such a review process. I >> learned today how difficult it can be to translate some specific things. >> > > Adding terminology seems fine, of course. Requiring the review step is in > principle OK for me too, but I wonder how it will work for languages where > we don't have native speakers as committers: does it require that strings > are explicitly marked as reviewed, or is it enough to ask volunteers to > check the warnings generated by Pootle and then send a note to the l10n > list saying that they have considered/ignored warnings appropriately? >
Asking volunteers to that would be a significant step in getting better quality. The nice thing about pootle review is that it can be done be everyone. My idea was to say something like "before moving po files back to svn, the committer must run a pootle review, if there are errors/warnings not explained by the translators on the mailing list, the files will not be transferred". I know it puts a little burden on the person who does the transfer, but similar to receiving a code patch. rgds jan I. > Regards, > Andrea. > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
