I was thinking over Karunakar's email after I had responded and, then read this email.
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Christian PERRIER <[email protected]> wrote: > Probably (indeed, I'm sure of this and you probably know more than me > for some of them).....but these are different from one project to > another. which is indeed acceptable. Different upstream projects have their own priorities and roadmaps and getting in a translation infrastructure in place has always distilled down to - "who is going to maintain it". Further along your response you mention Transifex. I don't really recall much about it, but till the time I did keep track there was a series of discussions between the Tx developers and Debian team(s) around various issues pertaining to the workflow. However, that is probably orthogonal to the discussion here. > Speaking, for instance, for Debian (at least Debian Installer), we > "only" have direct SVN access without a real friendly user > interface. Indeed, we have a Pootle instance, but I don't consider it > to be maintained enough to be "production-ready". Other projects might > have different interfaces ranging from direct commit to various kinds > of VCS, Pootle instances, something on (yurk) Rosetta or anything > else. > > Gathering everything in one place *with the various l10n projects > agreement* could be an interesting way to easily involve more ppl in > localization work. So, here's what I was thinking when I asked the question to Karunakar. In recent times, GNOME and LibreOffice (I assume that's what he meant by OOo) have put in some efforts and resources to firm up their translation infrastructure. While Damned Lies may or, may not be the best tool out there, LibOOo uses Pootle and receives regular input from the Pootle developers. The part in your response that is highlighted (*with the various l10n projects agreement*) is also somewhat confusing. Most of the upstream projects are interested in whether the languages meet their inclusion criteria (another orthogonal point of discussion) by delivering translations (and, perhaps testing, although none of the projects seem to, sadly, mandate testing of translations) within the time-frame published. They aren't probably specifically interested in whether a language/locale/script decides to mirror their repository content and then push back submissions as a downstream-upstream relationship. The reason I asked the question was simple - if an infrastructure is put up, it requires to be well tended. IndLinux, in recent times, hasn't seen that kind of care. Does it make it worthwhile to go down that path ? -- sankarshan mukhopadhyay <http://sankarshan.randomink.org/blog> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey _______________________________________________ IndLinux-group mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/indlinux-group
