Re: Moduleset Reorganization vs. L10N

[Kjartan Maraas <kmaraas broadpark no>]

ti., 12.10.2010 kl. 16.03 +0200, skrev Vincent Untz:
> 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".
> 

But it should also be easy for testers to compile the package with
updated translations without having to do make dist I guess. Perhaps
documenting how to add an updated translation by just copying the file
with the right name into the po/ dir is good enough?

Cheers
Kjartan