Re: Adding WebKitGTK+ to the translation stats pages

[Gabor Kelemen <kelemeng gnome hu>]

Petr Kovar írta:
> 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.
>
>   
Sure, in general, this would be the way forward, but the question was 
not this. However, I think not choosing a bad solution helps in the case 
of a given module.
> > 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.
>
>   
There is a slight difference between working on the code that was 
up-to-date yesterday and working on the code of the latest tarball.
> > 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.
>
>   
For modules that are part of the core release. For external 
dependencies, well, those can use whatever they want. I don't know which 
of these is webkitgtk, if it wants to be part of the core soon (like 
before Gnome 3.0), then I'd suggest not using such services.

Regards
Gabor Kelemen
> 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
>