Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

[Debarshi Ray <debarshi ray gmail com>]

> Also, it would be nice to have a single communication channel for
> translations. I am not sure if we can bridge notification from all
> translations system.
>
> If we accept Transifex, we should expect to see projects using other
> systems ... each system with its own communication methods and each
> system with it's own translation teams.

The reason I personally like Transifex.net (not just any instance of
Tx) is that it provides a common platform for developers and
translators to meet. Not every program is a GNOME program (whatever
that means). So it is difficult for those programs to leverage the
quality of l10n.gnome.org. Translators just need to sign up to
Transifex.net and from there on they can contribute to almost any
project for which they have been authorized (either by the language
team or the developer of the project). Right now Tx.net can not push
to git.gnome.org because Tx does not have an account, but that is
different thing.

> At least for Romanian translations, we have some non-technical
> translators which are always turned down by the amount of wiki pages
> they hate to read, command line tools they have to use, mailinglists
> they have to subscribe and user account they have to create.

I have heard Tx.net is easier. However I am not a translator, so I
have no idea how right or wrong that is. :-)

> Are Transifex teams synced with GNOME translations teams?

No, but I have found a few GNOME translators on Tx.net too.

> Can we (translators) use the same peer review as in l10n.gnome.org?

Tx.net does have the concept of language teams for a project, but that
is not compulsory. Maybe Dimitris can add to this.

Cheers,
Debarshi

-- 
One reason that life is complex is that it has a real part and an
imaginary part.
    -- Andrew Koenig