On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 12:09:50PM +0200, Marco Ciampa wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 09:29:01PM +0200, Yury V. Zaytsev wrote:
> > Otherwise, shall we at least somehow block people from using Transifex
> > for the languages that are being committed directly to the repository? I
> > do not like the current situation, because it seems that people doing
> > stuff on Transifex are not aware of what's going on the git repository
> > and vice versa. I think it's a really bad scenario when people invest
> > time in doing translations, and their work is just discarded.
> >
> I have always keeped mc translations in sync in many years. I think that
> transiflex is a great tool for missing or poor translations. If there is
> someone (like me) that check periodically translations for completless
> and for behaviour in the "live" program (translate -> compile -> install
> -> test -> commit) I think that is invaluable.
>
> I do not want to "go back" to transiflex. If it will be so, I understand
> and respect your decision, but I'll not continue updating mc in Italian.
>
this is not helpful. what *exactly* is it that makes transifex an
obstacle for you? is it not possible to simply use it as a "buffer"
between the local and the remote repository? is this a setup problem or
is it inherent in how tfx works?
_______________________________________________
mc-devel mailing list
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
