Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread 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 trying other means to win!. Regards, Debarshi -- One reason that life is

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Claude Paroz
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 trying

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Andre Klapper
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 trying

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Debarshi Ray
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 the

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Debarshi Ray
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 right

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Adi Roiban
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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Matej Urban
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,

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Jorge González
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 14:08, Matej Urban matej.ur...@gmail.com 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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Debarshi Ray
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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Debarshi Ray
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 each

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Debarshi Ray
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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Johannes Schmid
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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Shaun McCance
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 other means

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Og Maciel
Cross posting as I feel this is relevant here as well: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Claude Paroz cla...@2xlibre.net 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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Petr Kovar
Hi! Debarshi Ray debarshi@gmail.com, 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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Petr Kovar
Hi! Og Maciel ogmac...@gnome.org, 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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Dimitris Glezos
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Petr Kovar pmko...@gnome.org 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.

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Khaled Hosny
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 cla...@2xlibre.net wrote: So the question is, should we make it an explicit requirement to use l10n.gnome.org as the main

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-23 Thread Og Maciel
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org 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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-22 Thread Debarshi Ray
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

Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-02-22 Thread Claude Paroz
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

Using two translation workflows for one module

2010-01-31 Thread Claude Paroz
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