On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:18:05AM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote: > On 08/02/2010 12:03 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 11:38:01PM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote: > >> On 08/01/2010 10:41 PM, Hannie wrote: > >>> On https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+lang/nl/ I find > >>> many templates that should not be translated by us, Ubuntu Dutch > >>> Translation Team. With Gnome and KDE it is not so difficult, because it > >>> is usually in the name. But with others I am not sure if we should > >>> translate them or not. One of them is Aptitude. Is this upstream > >>> (Debian), or not? > >>> https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+source/aptitude/+pots/aptitude/nl/+translate?field.alternative_language-empty-marker=1 > >>> In fact, only few of the 1340 templates are NOT upstream (e.g. > >>> (K)Ubuntu-docs, software-center, app-install-data). > >>> Would it not be a good idea to mention in the list of templates whether > >>> it is upstream or Ubuntu? > >>> Hannie Dumoleyn > >> > >> In general, you should translate any template where translations are > >> still missing, no matter if they come from upstream or they are native > >> to Ubuntu. > > > > I think this is a very bad advice actually, we are not helping better > > localisation by wasting time doing downstream translations that are very > > unlikely to be used upstream. We should instead encourage Ubuntu > > If those strings show up in the GUI, they will be visible to the Ubuntu > users and hence should be translated. Even if upstream has abandoned > them already or they are native to Ubuntu, users still see them.
I never said otherwise, I'm just against the idea of translating them silently in Ubuntu, I instead suggest communicating with upstream translators beforehand to avoid any possiple duplication of effort. > > translators to communicate with upstream projects to reach a common > > background. For example, though packages in Ubuntu might be slightly > > older than current upstream releases, usually the differences are > > minimal that it is very easy to translate the latest version upstream > > then "backport" it to the version in Ubuntu and then fix any > > differences. This means with next upstream sync, the difference will be > > zero to very minimal. Most translation teams are underpowered unpaid > > Yep, I also wrote this. > > > volunteers, we need to manage those limited resources for the greater > > benefit, not wasting time redoing translations and re-reviewing > > translations. > > Of course, if upstream has already translations which are still missing > in Launchpad, they should just get downloaded and imported into > Launchpad manually. But if upstream doesn't have translations ready yet > and we are close to release, it would be better if those strings get > translated in Launchpad anyway and submitted to upstream for inclusion > into the next packaged version. I can't agree more, but your original advise wasn't suggesting this, not the way I read it at at least. I just want to stress on communicating and cooperating with upstream right from the start, not as an after thought. Putting my upstream hat, I hate downstream translators "fixing" non-bugs in my translation because they didn't even try to communicate with me. With my downstream hat on, I hate spending my already limited time doing translation that will be trashed within few months because some one else already translated it upstream. Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer -- ubuntu-translators mailing list ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators
