Dear fellow translators,
The solang module has recently joined the GNOME infrastructure, hence
the page on l10n.gnome.org.
http://l10n.gnome.org/module/solang/
However, they were previously using transifex.net as their platform of
(good!) choice.
https://transifex.net/projects/p/solang/
My point
We decided to stick to transifex.net for the moment. If you are
interested in translating Solang, please head over to:
https://www.transifex.net/projects/p/solang/c/master/
Thanks,
Debarshi
--
One reason that life is complex is that it has a real part and an
imaginary part.
-- Andrew Koenig
_
Le mardi 23 février 2010 à 03:32 +0200, Debarshi Ray a écrit :
> We decided to stick to transifex.net for the moment. If you are
> interested in translating Solang, please head over to:
> https://www.transifex.net/projects/p/solang/c/master/
Noted.
I have launched a thread on gnome-infrastructure
> Noted.
> I have launched a thread on gnome-infrastructure [1] to ask if this
> choice is acceptable for the GNOME community.
Wonderful. You started by asking me about my choice and now when you
did not like it, you are trying other means to "win"!.
Regards,
Debarshi
--
One reason that life is
Le mardi 23 février 2010 à 10:03 +0200, Debarshi Ray a écrit :
> > Noted.
> > I have launched a thread on gnome-infrastructure [1] to ask if this
> > choice is acceptable for the GNOME community.
>
> Wonderful. You started by asking me about my choice and now when you
> did not like it, you are tr
Am Dienstag, den 23.02.2010, 10:03 +0200 schrieb Debarshi Ray:
> > Noted.
> > I have launched a thread on gnome-infrastructure [1] to ask if this
> > choice is acceptable for the GNOME community.
>
> Wonderful. You started by asking me about my choice and now when you
> did not like it, you are tr
> Please read again Claude's email before criticizing him without any good
> reason.
I have read it multiple times and once again right now.
> Stating that Claude "did not like it" is not covered at all by
> what Claude wrote before.
You asked me about my choice. But you never mentioned that if
> This is the first time a module uses a different translation workflow,
> that's why it seems important to me to define if this is acceptable or
> not for GNOME translation teams.
That is entirely fine and within your rights to do so. However you are
now going to the extent of questioning the rig
În data de Ma, 23-02-2010 la 03:32 +0200, Debarshi Ray a scris:
> We decided to stick to transifex.net for the moment. If you are
> interested in translating Solang, please head over to:
> https://www.transifex.net/projects/p/solang/c/master/
>
Hi,
Can we still use l10n.gnome.org for translating
Hello
There is only one important aspect of this dispute.
Where or what is the "up-stream" or simply how translations are
"migrating". If l18n.gnome stays on the bottom of the food-chain and
does not take updated translations automatically from launchpad,
transifex, this-site, that-site, lalala,
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 14:08, Matej Urban wrote:
> Hello
>
> There is only one important aspect of this dispute.
>
> Where or what is the "up-stream" or simply how translations are
> "migrating". If l18n.gnome stays on the bottom of the food-chain and
> does not take updated translations automati
> If it
> gets translated elsewhere, then it should not get into gnome without
> language team approval, if it exists.
This is the part that I do not understand. Does getting into GNOME
mean using GNOME infrastructure or being an official module. Solang is
not an official module. The reason for us
> Also, it would be nice to have a single communication channel for
> translations. I am not sure if we can bridge notification from all
> translations system.
>
> If we accept Transifex, we should expect to see projects using other
> systems ... each system with its own communication methods and e
> No, please, I stand against importing "from time to time" projects
> into DL, if they are translated elsewhere at the same time.
What ways would you suggest to prevent a project hosted on
git.gnome.org from being translated in DL because its translation
community originated elsewhere? A big fat
Hi!
To be clear, I don't think there has ever been an official rule that
modules on git.gnome.org have to be translated in damned-lies. This rule
is just there for official GNOME modules.
Nontheless, this has never been a problem because usually modules get
imported in a very early stage without
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 10:03 +0200, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> > Noted.
> > I have launched a thread on gnome-infrastructure [1] to ask if this
> > choice is acceptable for the GNOME community.
>
> Wonderful. You started by asking me about my choice and now when you
> did not like it, you are trying oth
So, to sum up ...
If you let gnome teams take over your translations, the translations
will be better, syncd with other gnome apps "terminology and desktop"
and will sure be updated as soon as strings change. You'll have also
less worries.
M!
___
gnome-i
Cross posting as I feel this is relevant here as well:
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Claude Paroz wrote:
> So the question is, should we make it an explicit requirement to use
> l10n.gnome.org as the main translation platform for a module to be
> hosted in GNOME Git?
Hi Claude,
Short answer:
Hi!
Debarshi Ray , Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:12:02 +0200:
> > If it
> > gets translated elsewhere, then it should not get into gnome without
> > language team approval, if it exists.
>
> This is the part that I do not understand. Does getting into GNOME
> mean using GNOME infrastructure or being an of
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 19:15 +0100, Petr Kovar wrote:
> > I do not know about Launchpad because I have never used it. But in
> > Transifex.net developers have the option of allowing anyone to submit
> > or require that new translators or teams ask for permission. Solang
> > requires that new transla
Hi!
Og Maciel , Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:04:57 -0500:
(...)
> clone, merge, and push back to the repository. However, nothing stops
> anyone from cloning the git repository, doing their work offline and
> submitting it back via bugzilla.
I think that in that case maintainers/developers should be res
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Petr Kovar wrote:
> [...]
> Moreover, there's no way translators or translation teams on
> Tx.net can communicate with each other, as the Tx.net translation team
> approach is based on a per-project basis. That's quite unfortunate in my
> opinion. Translators and d
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:04:57PM -0500, Og Maciel wrote:
> Cross posting as I feel this is relevant here as well:
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Claude Paroz wrote:
> > So the question is, should we make it an explicit requirement to use
> > l10n.gnome.org as the main translation platform
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
>> Damned Lies: contributors have to register with DL and then ask to be
>> added to a "team" in order to use the web interface to reserve a
>> package for translation. All the work is done offline and then
>> uploaded back to a "holder area" wh
24 matches
Mail list logo
