2010/10/18 Dimitris Glezos <gle...@indifex.com>: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Kenneth Nielsen <k.nielse...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> The solution of having a translations only copy of a module in gnome >> git, combined with some sort of automatic syncing back and forth, >> seems to a good solution for the module maintainers that don't mind >> having this sort of solution. > > I'm not sure how well this will work. The developer still needs to > sync between the trees, and in the past developers found this very > frustrating at times. An example is when a developer updates all PO > files with new strings and after this he pulls translations from the > translation branch. The merge is a nightmare (since git does a git > merge instead of a msgmerge). > > The feedback we received so far is that viable solutions are two: a) > pull&push straight to the master branch and b) not push anywhere, just > "upload" the files somewhere and the developer will fetch them when he > needs to. > >> In terms of translators this will mean >> that they can work the way they do now, so this should automatically >> be ok for translators*. Since it is almost an implementational >> freebie, is should be ok to have this as the base solution, and then >> after that determine if we want to add something else. >> >> So at this point, can we agree that this can be ONE acceptable >> solution? Then we could start working setting up the framework for it >> and actually implement it for the modules that are ok with it. > >> Then we can afterwards continue discussing whether we should/need to >> add an offer for a external translation framework that is also GNOME >> approved (e.g. Transifex, Launchpad ,....). > > I like this step-by-step, build-on-what-we-have approach, it's very > wise and I usually follow it as well. Admittedly, though, it has a > (serious) disadvantage: It only accepts solutions which can build on > top of the current way of doing things. This impedes real/radical > change. Sometimes radically changing things is good (e.g. when you're > in a dead-end). > > Currently our way of working in GTP is "based on files hosted on a > VCS, namely git.gnome.org". The challenges are obvious and well > explained (although they hardly constitute a dead-end). My humble > suggestion is to take this opportunity to really think how effective > our way of doing things is. The plan behind Tx 1.0 was to move away > from "files hosted on a VCS" and go to "strings (not files) living in > a web app (not vcs) which can be imported/exported freely to files". > We had both independent projects as well as projects like GNOME behind > the decision. > > It was a really, REALLY hard decision, but we are confident that it's > the way things will work in the future and the way to go. Things like > upstream/downstream support, translation memory, consistency, > per-string suggestions/voting.. they're all possible now. The Q is > whether we want to take this opportunity to really re-think how we're > doing things, or if we're just going to shift this decision to e.g. 2 > years later. Sounds like a good BoF discussion for GUADEC. =)
Well, I agree that we should think hard and long about this at some point, because we don't ever want to exclude ourselves from the opportunity to make radical changes. But I really really really don't think that the GNOME 3.0 cycle is the right time to do it. Regards Kenneth _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n