Re: [openstack-dev] [i18n] Edge and Containers whitepapers ready for translation
Hello Ian, due the nature of the pot file format and mechanic we cant add the translators as msgid entries bc will only exist on the corresponding po file per lang said that , i think that we could create a solution using both [1] and [2] that said * adding "TRANSLATORS" msgid on pot file, so i could get that string per lang * adding translators names as stated on [2] as po file metadata so i could parse and display per language regards On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Ian Y. Choi wrote: > Hello Sebastian, > > Korean has also currently 100% translation now. > About two weeks ago, there were a discussion how to include the list of > translators per translated document. > > My proposal is mentioned in [1] - do you think it is a good idea and it is > under implementation, > or parsing the name of translators in header lines on po files (e.g., four > lines on [2]) would be better idea? > > > With many thanks, > > /Ian > > [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-i18n/% > 23openstack-i18n.2018-07-19.log.html#t2018-07-19T15:09:46 > [2] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/i18n/tree/doc/source > /locale/de/LC_MESSAGES/doc.po#n1 > > > Frank Kloeker wrote on 7/31/2018 6:39 PM: > >> Hi Sebastian, >> >> okay, it's translated now. In Edge whitepaper is the problem with >> XML-Parsing of the term AT Don't know how to escape this. Maybe you will >> see the warning during import too. >> >> kind regards >> >> Frank >> >> Am 2018-07-30 20:09, schrieb Sebastian Marcet: >> >>> Hi Frank, >>> i was double checking pot file and realized that original pot missed >>> some parts of the original paper (subsections of the paper) apologizes >>> on that >>> i just re uploaded an updated pot file with missing subsections >>> >>> regards >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Frank Kloeker wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jimmy, >>>> >>>> from the GUI I'll get this link: >>>> >>>> https://translate.openstack.org/rest/file/translation/edge- >>> computing/pot-translation/de/po?docId=cloud-edge-computing- >>> beyond-the-data-center >>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> paper version are only in container whitepaper: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://translate.openstack.org/rest/file/translation/levera >>> ging-containers-openstack/paper/de/po?docId=leveraging- >>> containers-and-openstack >>> >>>> [2] >>>> >>>> In general there is no group named papers >>>> >>>> kind regards >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> Am 2018-07-30 17:06, schrieb Jimmy McArthur: >>>> Frank, >>>> >>>> We're getting a 404 when looking for the pot file on the Zanata API: >>>> >>>> https://translate.openstack.org/rest/file/translation/papers >>> /papers/de/po?docId=edge-computing >>> >>>> [3] >>>> >>>> As a result, we can't pull the po files. Any idea what might be >>>> happening? >>>> >>>> Seeing the same thing with both papers... >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Jimmy >>>> >>>> Frank Kloeker wrote: >>>> Hi Jimmy, >>>> >>>> Korean and German version are now done on the new format. Can you >>>> check publishing? >>>> >>>> thx >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> Am 2018-07-19 16:47, schrieb Jimmy McArthur: >>>> Hi all - >>>> >>>> Follow up on the Edge paper specifically: >>>> >>>> https://translate.openstack.org/iteration/view/edge-computin >>> g/pot-translation/documents?dswid=-3192 >>> >>>> [4] This is now available. As I mentioned on IRC this morning, it >>>> should >>>> be VERY close to the PDF. Probably just needs a quick review. >>>> >>>> Let me know if I can assist with anything. >>>> >>>> Thank you to i18n team for all of your help!!! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Jimmy >>>> >>>> Jimmy McArthur wrote: >>>> Ian raises some great points :) I'll try to address below... >>>> >>>> Ian Y. Choi wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> When I saw overall translation source strings on container >>>> whitepaper, I would infer that new edge computing whitepaper >&
Re: [openstack-dev] [i18n] Edge and Containers whitepapers ready for translation
Hi Frank, i was double checking pot file and realized that original pot missed some parts of the original paper (subsections of the paper) apologizes on that i just re uploaded an updated pot file with missing subsections regards On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Frank Kloeker wrote: > Hi Jimmy, > > from the GUI I'll get this link: > https://translate.openstack.org/rest/file/translation/edge- > computing/pot-translation/de/po?docId=cloud-edge-computing- > beyond-the-data-center > > paper version are only in container whitepaper: > > https://translate.openstack.org/rest/file/translation/levera > ging-containers-openstack/paper/de/po?docId=leveraging- > containers-and-openstack > > In general there is no group named papers > > kind regards > > Frank > > > Am 2018-07-30 17:06, schrieb Jimmy McArthur: > >> Frank, >> >> We're getting a 404 when looking for the pot file on the Zanata API: >> https://translate.openstack.org/rest/file/translation/papers >> /papers/de/po?docId=edge-computing >> >> As a result, we can't pull the po files. Any idea what might be >> happening? >> >> Seeing the same thing with both papers... >> >> Thank you, >> Jimmy >> >> Frank Kloeker wrote: >> >>> Hi Jimmy, >>> >>> Korean and German version are now done on the new format. Can you check >>> publishing? >>> >>> thx >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> Am 2018-07-19 16:47, schrieb Jimmy McArthur: >>> Hi all - Follow up on the Edge paper specifically: https://translate.openstack.org/iteration/view/edge-computin g/pot-translation/documents?dswid=-3192 This is now available. As I mentioned on IRC this morning, it should be VERY close to the PDF. Probably just needs a quick review. Let me know if I can assist with anything. Thank you to i18n team for all of your help!!! Cheers, Jimmy Jimmy McArthur wrote: > Ian raises some great points :) I'll try to address below... > > Ian Y. Choi wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> When I saw overall translation source strings on container >> whitepaper, I would infer that new edge computing whitepaper >> source strings would include HTML markup tags. >> > One of the things I discussed with Ian and Frank in Vancouver is the > expense of recreating PDFs with new translations. It's prohibitively > expensive for the Foundation as it requires design resources which we just > don't have. As a result, we created the Containers whitepaper in HTML, so > that it could be easily updated w/o working with outside design > contractors. I indicated that we would also be moving the Edge paper to > HTML so that we could prevent that additional design resource cost. > >> On the other hand, the source strings of edge computing whitepaper >> which I18n team previously translated do not include HTML markup >> tags, since the source strings are based on just text format. >> > The version that Akihiro put together was based on the Edge PDF, which > we unfortunately didn't have the resources to implement in the same > format. > >> >> I really appreciate Akihiro's work on RST-based support on publishing >> translated edge computing whitepapers, since >> translators do not have to re-translate all the strings. >> > I would like to second this. It took a lot of initiative to work on > the RST-based translation. At the moment, it's just not usable for the > reasons mentioned above. > >> On the other hand, it seems that I18n team needs to investigate on >> translating similar strings of HTML-based edge computing whitepaper >> source strings, which would discourage translators. >> > Can you expand on this? I'm not entirely clear on why the HTML based > translation is more difficult. > >> >> That's my point of view on translating edge computing whitepaper. >> >> For translating container whitepaper, I want to further ask the >> followings since *I18n-based tools* >> would mean for translators that translators can test and publish >> translated whitepapers locally: >> >> - How to build translated container whitepaper using original >> Silverstripe-based repository? >> https://docs.openstack.org/i18n/latest/tools.html describes well >> how to build translated artifacts for RST-based OpenStack repositories >> but I could not find the way how to build translated container >> whitepaper with translated resources on Zanata. >> > This is a little tricky. It's possible to set up a local version of > the OpenStack website (https://github.com/OpenStackw > eb/openstack-org/blob/master/installation.md). However, we have to > manually ingest the po files as they are completed and then push them out > to production, so that wouldn't do much to help with your local build. > I'm > open to suggestions on how we can make
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] project-navigator-data repo live - two choices need input
i think that we the format proposed on
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454691/1
we would be ok
giving my +1 there
cheers
2017-04-11 10:45 GMT-03:00 Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com>:
> Sweet - so - each repo should have release and component (if I understand
> those right) - is there additional info that we should include?
>
> Like - in the multi-file approach, it's a set of directories with files of
> the form:
>
> release/component.json -> contains versions[]
>
> And the single file, it's:
>
> release/{release}.json -> contains services[] each with versions[]
>
> On 04/11/2017 07:40 AM, Sebastian Marcet wrote:
>
>> Monty thx so much
>> basically we have following structure
>>
>> Release ->Component ->Version
>>
>> so i think that we could consume this pretty easily, only caveat is that
>> we still to add from our side, Release and Component data, but i guess
>> that is doable
>>
>> thx u so much !!! i will take a look to both formats
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> 2017-04-11 8:44 GMT-03:00 Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com
>> <mailto:mord...@inaugust.com>>:
>>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> We've got the project-navigator-data repo created and there are two
>> proposals up for what the content should look like.
>>
>> Could TC folks please add openstack/project-navigator-data to your
>> watch lists, and go review:
>>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454688
>> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454688>
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454691
>> <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454691>
>>
>> so we can come to an agreement on which version we prefer? Maybe
>> just +2 the one you prefer (or both if you don't care) and only -1
>> if you specifically dislike one over the other?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Monty
>>
>>
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> >
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sebastian Marcet
>> https://ar.linkedin.com/in/smarcet
>> SKYPE: sebastian.marcet
>>
>>
>>
>> __
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib
>> e
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
--
Sebastian Marcet
https://ar.linkedin.com/in/smarcet
SKYPE: sebastian.marcet
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] project-navigator-data repo live - two choices need input
Monty thx so much basically we have following structure Release ->Component ->Version so i think that we could consume this pretty easily, only caveat is that we still to add from our side, Release and Component data, but i guess that is doable thx u so much !!! i will take a look to both formats cheers 2017-04-11 8:44 GMT-03:00 Monty Taylor <mord...@inaugust.com>: > Hey all, > > We've got the project-navigator-data repo created and there are two > proposals up for what the content should look like. > > Could TC folks please add openstack/project-navigator-data to your watch > lists, and go review: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454688 > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/454691 > > so we can come to an agreement on which version we prefer? Maybe just +2 > the one you prefer (or both if you don't care) and only -1 if you > specifically dislike one over the other? > > Thanks! > Monty > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Sebastian Marcet https://ar.linkedin.com/in/smarcet SKYPE: sebastian.marcet __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] Project Navigator Updates - Feedback Request
Neil sorry about that, problem solved, please re test regards 2017-03-24 14:02 GMT-03:00 Neil Jerram <n...@tigera.io>: > If I start typing something in the search box, I get an "Authentication > Required" popup that captures the remaining keystrokes that I intended to > type into the search box. > > Then if I do manage to type a complete search term into the box, and press > Enter, that "Authentication Required" popup pops up again, and the search > doesn't happen. > > (I'm guessing it's probably a mistake and you didn't intend this to be > authentication-protected...) > > Neil > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:58 PM Lauren Sell <lau...@openstack.org> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> We’ve been talking for some time about updating the project navigator, >> and we have a draft ready to share for community feedback before we launch >> and publicize it. One of the big goals coming out of the joint TC/UC/Board >> meeting a few weeks ago[1] was to help better communicate ‘what is >> openstack?’ and this is one step in that direction. >> >> A few goals in mind for the redesign: >> - Represent all official, user-facing projects and deployment services in >> the navigator >> - Better categorize the projects by function in a way that makes sense to >> prospective users (this may evolve over time as we work on mapping the >> OpenStack landscape) >> - Help users understand which projects are mature and stable vs emerging >> - Highlight popular project sets and sample configurations based on >> different use cases to help users get started >> >> For a bit of context, we’re working to give each OpenStack official >> project a stronger platform as we think of OpenStack as a framework of >> composable infrastructure services that can be used individually or >> together as a powerful system. This includes the project mascots (so we in >> effect have logos to promote each component separately), updates to the >> project navigator, and bringing back the “project updates” track at the >> Summit to give each PTL/core team a chance to provide an update on their >> project roadmap (to be recorded and promoted in the project navigator among >> other places!). >> >> We want your feedback on the project navigator v2 before it launches. >> Please take a look at the current version on the staging site and provide >> feedback on this thread. >> >> http://devbranch.openstack.org/software/project-navigator/ >> >> Please review the overall concept and the data and description for your >> project specifically. The data is primarily pulled from TC tags[2] and Ops >> tags[3]. You’ll notice some projects have more information available than >> others for various reasons. That’s one reason we decided to downplay the >> maturity metric for now and the data on some pages is hidden. If you think >> your project is missing data, please check out the repositories and submit >> changes or again respond to this thread. >> >> Also know this will continue to evolve and we are open to feedback. As I >> mentioned, a team that formed at the joint strategy session a few weeks ago >> is tackling how we map OpenStack projects, which may be reflected in the >> categories. And I suspect we’ll continue to build out additional tags and >> better data sources to be incorporated. >> >> Thanks for your feedback and help. >> >> Best, >> Lauren >> >> [1] http://superuser.openstack.org/articles/community-leadership-charts- >> course-openstack/ >> [2] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/tags/ >> [3] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Operations/Tags >> >> >> __ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: >> unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Sebastian Marcet https://ar.linkedin.com/in/smarcet SKYPE: sebastian.marcet __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
