Re: Moduleset Reorganization vs. L10N

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

Le mardi 12 octobre 2010, à 12:10 +0200, Claude Paroz a écrit :
> b) we enforce a GNOME stats/translation tool, and we make the necessary
> steps so as it supports distributed development. For example, that could
> mean that the tool on l10n.gnome.org hosts an i18n version of each tracked branch where
> translations are committed by GNOME teams, and the modules have to merge
> regularly this branch into main repositories (at least before each
> release).
> ++ single location for translators
> - enforcing a special workflow for maintainers
> - risk that maintainers omit to merge i18n branch
> 
> My preference is for b) as it is easier for translators: only one
> workflow has to be handled.

b) sounds good, indeed. Note that you can make it easy for maintainers
if we provide some Makefile rules that they can use to update the
translations during "make dist".

(That's also what transifex wants to do in the future)

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.