Re: New module proposal: Clutter core

["Johannes Schmid" <jhs jsschmid de>]

Hi!

> Kenneth Nielsen <k nielsen81 gmail com>, Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:45:02 +0200:
>
>> 2010/10/4 Johannes Schmid <jhs jsschmid de>:
>> > Hi!
>> >
>> >> Clutter is still hosted on a separate server because the Clutter
>> >> Project wants to be an umbrella for a set of projects, like language
>> >> bindings, toolkits, and applications that may or may not be related
>> to
>> >> the GNOME Project. we're fairly liberal with giving people access to
>> >> the repository, and we have infrastructure in place for user
>> >> repositories for contributors. the Bugzilla instance is still in
>> place
>> >> because Clutter is used in non-GNOME projects that might need
>> >> restricted access.
>> >
>> > I want to raise the point again, that the separate git server is
>> painful
>> > for translators which is the main reason that I dislike it. (see
>> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2010-July/msg00075.html and
>> > follow ups)
>> >
>> > Basically the point is that if we allow core modules to be hosted
>> > elsewhere we can shut down the GNOME Translation Project as it exists
>> > now completely because our whole quality work with coordinators and
>> > reviewers will become obsolete. GNOME has a very long and good
>> > tradition of high-level and consistent translations which would get
>> > lost.
>> >
>> > The point is not that important for clutter which probably doesn't
>> > contain many user visible strings but if we they yes here it will be
>> > difficult to say no with other modules.
>> >
>> > Needless to say that I of course in general like the idea of having
>> > clutter as a core module.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Johannes
>>
>> I agree with Johannes, especially about the quality. As an easy fix
>> for this, couldn't we just keep the translations in a git.gnome.org
>> module? It would not allow us to run intltool-udpate and all that, but
>> that would probably be ok as long and the maintainers would fetch new
>> translations and update translation files with new strings regularly.
>
> Oh, so here we go again. Thanks for raising this issue, guys. I'm, too,
> convinced that it's important for the future of the GTP and GNOME
> translation teams to decide what should we require from core GNOME modules
> (or however we label/define it).
>
> I'm not really sure whether it's realistic to expect any [code hosting]
> infrastructure movement in this case, but as Aron Xu suggested the last
> time
> this discussion came up, we could try to propose doing the clutter l10n
> management the system-tools-backends way, i.e. maintaining a Git clone on
> git.gnome.org.
>
> Certainly, clutter is a fairly different piece of software, and this
> cloning
> workflow may have some clear shortcomings. E.g. maintenance burden for
> developers, depending on developers' time, no guarantee of up-to-date POT
> files, as our translators are used to and expect it esp. when dealing with
> tight deadlines, that is every six months.
>
> If nothing more, we could at least persuade developers to stick to the
> more
> closely managed module l10n community (if such a word is appropriate
> here),
> so to not allow anyone on the net to submit translation work with, from
> the
> GTP perspective, varying quality.

Moving this discussion back to desktop-devel-list where it should have
stayed with a CC'd gnome-i18n.

Regards,
Johannes