OK, my thoughts of leaving Weblate aren’t an option. Julien Lepiller <[email protected]> writes:
> The process between the TP and Weblate is quite different. As noted, > the TP has a dedicated team, smaller and possibly higher quality. > > However, remember there was a lot of resistance to host the manual, > and we never got the packages hosted at the TP I believe (or was it > the other way around?). I did not remember. Indeed the packages weren’t on TP and would need more thought. > The release cycle is different. With Weblate, we can translate strings > as they come, whereas on the TP, it would be an intense process for > translators, right before the release. If a translator misses the > deadline, it won't get merged before the following release one year > later, which I think is a pretty bad experience. > > In addition, the process of updating the pot files on the platform is > completely automated with weblate, but requires a bit of human > intervention for the TP. I believe the workload is similar for merging > translations from the platform. Yes, these additional arguments also imply that releasing POT files much more often than once per release is taxing on few Translation Project maintainers. Also on Guix. I guess we don’t have the resources, although Weblate imports do need the manual checking described at https://codeberg.org/guix/maintenance/src/branch/master/doc/release.org > Even if we cannot enforce a policy on translators, we can self-impose > (as committers or team members?) not using machine-generated content > to fill or review translations. It's a bit weak compared to the rest > of the pledge but it's better than nothing at all. Even for the TP, I > don't think we can force translators to make a pledge about anything. “[The project will not be] using machine-generated content to fill or review translations.” is good. Thank you! Regards, Florian
