2010/10/18 Dimitris Glezos gle...@indifex.com:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Kenneth Nielsen k.nielse...@gmail.com
wrote:
The solution of having a translations only copy of a module in gnome
git, combined with some sort of automatic syncing back and forth,
seems to a good solution for the
2010/10/16 daniel g. siegel dgsie...@gnome.org:
On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 03:05 +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
2010/10/15 daniel g. siegel dgsie...@gnome.org:
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
Hallo everyone
I think this thread is about reaching the length where we need to make
something happen, or nothing will come of it and we are all doomed to
repeat the whole thing the next time this issue arises. So lets try
and sum up:
The solution of having a translations only copy of a module
Hi!
Then we can afterwards continue discussing whether we should/need to
add an offer for a external translation framework that is also GNOME
approved (e.g. Transifex, Launchpad ,).
Note that Transifex is not an *external* solution as we would host our
own Transifex service on GNOME
2010/10/18 Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de:
Hi!
Then we can afterwards continue discussing whether we should/need to
add an offer for a external translation framework that is also GNOME
approved (e.g. Transifex, Launchpad ,).
Note that Transifex is not an *external* solution as we
On 18 October 2010 06:12, Kenneth Nielsen k.nielse...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip details]
So at this point, can we agree that this can be ONE acceptable
solution? Then we could start working setting up the framework for it
and actually implement it for the modules that are ok with it.
Then we can
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Kenneth Nielsen k.nielse...@gmail.com wrote:
The solution of having a translations only copy of a module in gnome
git, combined with some sort of automatic syncing back and forth,
seems to a good solution for the module maintainers that don't mind
having this
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 18:11 +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote:
Now, having said this, I just realized a potential issue with Tx
GNOME. Tx 1.0 does NOT support intltool projects which do not have a
POT file. More information at the following pages:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 18:11 +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote:
Now, having said this, I just realized a potential issue with Tx
GNOME. Tx 1.0 does NOT support intltool projects which do not have a
POT file. More information at
On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 03:05 +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
2010/10/15 daniel g. siegel dgsie...@gnome.org:
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME
Kenneth Nielsen k.nielse...@gmail.com a scris:
[snip]
In the case of clutter core, which I believe was the module that got
this discussion started again, Emmanuele said the following:
now, how do we go from here to there is probably worth discussing. I
cannot move Clutter to gnome.org; it's
El dv 15 de 10 de 2010 a les 13:29 -0500, en/na Diego Escalante Urrelo
va escriure:
El vie, 15-10-2010 a las 08:29 -0700, Sandy Armstrong escribió:
I'm not a fan myself, but I can see how once a project was already
hooked on a Launchpad-oriented process, it would be work to migrate to
Le vendredi 15 octobre 2010, à 17:02 +0200, daniel g. siegel a écrit :
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
outside of
On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 15:53 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le vendredi 15 octobre 2010, à 17:02 +0200, daniel g. siegel a écrit :
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
everything with a single shot.
Hi!
As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
outside of git.gnome.org don't always feel comfortable with raw
commits to their VCS (security, noise in the vcs history etc). Whether
translations should
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
outside of git.gnome.org don't always feel comfortable with raw
commits to their VCS
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:02 AM, daniel g. siegel dgsie...@gnome.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
outside of
El vie, 15-10-2010 a las 08:29 -0700, Sandy Armstrong escribió:
I'm not a fan myself, but I can see how once a project was already
hooked on a Launchpad-oriented process, it would be work to migrate to
GNOME infrastructure.
Agree, how could we shorten that difference? I think this is the
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 13:29 -0500, Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
El vie, 15-10-2010 a las 08:29 -0700, Sandy Armstrong escribió:
I'm not a fan myself, but I can see how once a project was already
hooked on a Launchpad-oriented process, it would be work to migrate to
GNOME infrastructure.
2010/10/15 daniel g. siegel dgsie...@gnome.org:
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 16:47 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
As much as I'd like to claim it, I don't think we can achieve
everything with a single shot. :-) Maintainers of GNOME modules hosted
outside of git.gnome.org don't always feel
2010/10/10 Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net:
Hi,
in
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-October/msg00060.html
the release-team announced its proposal for a reorganisation of the
current modulesets.
As the release-team aims at a more decentralized approach for modules
that
Þann þri 12.okt 2010 12:25, skrifaði Kenneth Nielsen:
2010/10/10 Andre Klapperak...@gmx.net:
Hi,
in
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-October/msg00060.html
the release-team announced its proposal for a reorganisation of the
current modulesets.
As the release-team aims at
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Kenneth Nielsen k.nielse...@gmail.com wrote:
Implementable workflow (3). (A) again is status quo, not much to say
about that. Transifex (C) (afaik*) workflow revolves around
downloading po-files and working with those.[...]
Transifex has a web based
Hi!
Am Dienstag, den 12.10.2010, 18:30 + schrieb Og Maciel:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Kenneth Nielsen k.nielse...@gmail.com
wrote:
Implementable workflow (3). (A) again is status quo, not much to say
about that. Transifex (C) (afaik*) workflow revolves around
downloading
Hi,
in
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2010-October/msg00060.html
the release-team announced its proposal for a reorganisation of the
current modulesets.
As the release-team aims at a more decentralized approach for modules
that are not part of the GNOME core there are open
25 matches
Mail list logo
