Re: Adding WebKitGTK+ to the translation stats pages

[Petr Kovar <pmkovar gnome org>]

Gabor Kelemen <kelemeng gnome hu>, Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:32:09 +0200:

> Petr Kovar írta:
> > Luca Ferretti <elle uca libero it>, Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:25:15 +0200:
> >
> >   
> >> 2009/4/13 Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle <leonardof gnome org>:
> >>     
> >>> The freedesktop module is used for software we don't translate
> >>> ourselves (at least not with GNOME infrastructure). How should
> >>> translators submit translations? Bug reports?
> >>>       
> >> That's true: by now l10n.gnome.org could be good for translators to
> >> *fetch* refreshed webkitgtk PO files (and POT file to start a new
> >> translation), but webkitgtk development is hosted outside
> >> {svn,git}.gnome.org, so committers[1] will be not able to *send*
> >> updated PO files.
> >>
> >> Unless you create a "fake" webkitgtk module on {svn,git}.gnome.org,
> >> used only to trac PO files (committers will put updated PO files here,
> >> webkitgtk developers will grab PO file before relases).
> >>     
> >
> > The Translation Project infrastructure could also be used, for sure.
> >
> >   
> 
> That obsolete cr^H^Hthing could be used for sure, but please, if we can,
> just avoid it. Really. 

Oh really? ;-) Probably the better way to go would be to try to change the
current TP state, not just because it's being actively used by
some maintainers and translators. Just avoiding it in this case doesn't
improve the situation. So GNOME translators might want to start discussion
with the TP coordinators/admins about the future of the TP.

> Anything is better than that[1], for example the
> fake module above (just like with system-tools-backends) or the

I don't know the technical details, but if I understand it correctly you
don't necessarily work with the latest code (thus strings) in the case of
repository clone either. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> Transifex instance hosted at Fedora[2], even with the privacy issues it
> has (i.e. translators have to sign a license agreement and give out
> personal details, which some people wouldn't like).

Yes, we had this discussion last year. That is, discussion about avoiding
the use of downstream infrastructure for upstream modules l10n.

Just to avoid confusion, by "downstream" here I mean the distributor's
infrastructure, whether it's translate.fedoraproject.org or
translations.launchpad.net. So yes, it's irrelevant whether the transifex
software itself is an upstream project, or not.

Cheers,
Petr Kovar