Re: GNOME Moduleset Reorganization vs. L10N

[Kenneth Nielsen <k nielsen81 gmail com>]

2010/10/12 Johannes Schmid <jhs jsschmid de>:
> Hi!
>
> Am Dienstag, den 12.10.2010, 18:30 +0000 schrieb Og Maciel:
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Kenneth Nielsen <k nielsen81 gmail com> wrote:
>> > Implementable workflow (3). (A) again is status quo, not much to say
>> > about that. Transifex (C) (afaik*) workflow revolves around
>> > downloading po-files and working with those.[...]
>>
>> Transifex has a web based translation tool that lets you do your work
>> online via their online editor called Lotte.
>>
>> As I'm currently the maintainer of the Transifex appliance, getting an
>> instance up and running either on a physical box or a virtual system
>> would be quite simple. Fwiw, the Xfce team uses the appliance.
>
> After some thinking transiflex really looks like a nice solution. I
> mean, damned-lies is cool but it adds a lot of maintaince work (for
> Claude).
>
> Could we install our own transiflex instance on our infrastructure, e.g.
> have transiflex.gnome.org or something like that? Can it be integrated
> with our LDAP server? Can transiflex commit automatically to
> git.gnome.org once we sorted the security things out?
>
> I guess people are still able to update their translations offline with
> their favourite editor, right?

We are getting off topic here. The problem at hand is how to handle
projects that will/can not have their code hosted on gnome servers,
settings up an gnome instance of transifex will not solve that.

What we here need to figure out is, when people don't want their main
code repository hosted at gnome, then how do we handle that. Please
comment on that, as it will be an important decision for our workflow.

Regards Kenneth