Re: Using different translation workflow
Le mardi 23 février 2010 à 08:31 +0100, Claude Paroz a écrit : Hi, For the first time, we have a GNOME Git hosted module that choose to use a different translation tool than l10n.gnome.org. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=608627 http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2010-February/msg00153.html On one side, I would say that freedom is the key, so every module maintainer should choose the tool which suited him the best. On the other side, this could lead to fragmentation. If GNOME translation teams have to use several different platform for their work, there is clearly an overhead implied. Considering various comments on the bug #608627, coordinators don't like this situation. 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? Thanks for all those who contributed to this discussion. While discussing privately with Debarshi, we found a sort of compromise. Transifex.net will still be available to translate solang, but po files will be sent by email from the platform to Debarshi, which will then submit the files to the corresponding GNOME translation team. This way, GNOME teams will still be able to quality check the file and then commit it like any other GNOME module. Hopefully this solution will be satisfactory to all parts. Cheers, Claude ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Using different translation workflow
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Claude Paroz cla...@2xlibre.net wrote: Transifex.net will still be available to translate solang, but po files will be sent by email from the platform to Debarshi, which will then submit the files to the corresponding GNOME translation team. This way, GNOME teams will still be able to quality check the file and then commit it like any other GNOME module. Hopefully this solution will be satisfactory to all parts. Great news Claude! Really glad to see things worked out for everyone involved! Cheers, -- Og B. Maciel omac...@foresightlinux.org ogmac...@gnome.org ogmac...@ubuntu.com GPG Keys: D5CFC202 http://www.ogmaciel.com (en_US) http://blog.ogmaciel.com (pt_BR) ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Using different translation workflow
I suppose we're suggesting this as a temporary solution, right? It kinda puts a lot of weight on the developer himself and scalability is pretty low. I think the extra work of routing translations from Tx.net to l10n.gnome.org manually will be worth the effort in the end. Cheers, Debarshi -- One reason that life is complex is that it has a real part and an imaginary part. -- Andrew Koenig ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
Re: Using different translation workflow
Le mercredi 24 février 2010 à 23:30 +0200, Debarshi Ray a écrit : I suppose we're suggesting this as a temporary solution, right? It kinda puts a lot of weight on the developer himself and scalability is pretty low. I think the extra work of routing translations from Tx.net to l10n.gnome.org manually will be worth the effort in the end. Dimitris, We could try to automate the process a bit. Let's take this privately and see if we could send the file by email directly to Damned-Lies. Claude ___ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
