Re: Using two translation workflows for one module

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:04:57PM -0500, Og Maciel wrote:
> Cross posting as I feel this is relevant here as well:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Claude Paroz <claude 2xlibre net> wrote:
> > So the question is, should we make it an explicit requirement to use
> > as the main translation platform for a module to be
> > hosted in GNOME Git?
> Hi Claude,
> Short answer: absolutely not.
> Long answer: As a fellow translator and coordinator for non-GNOME
> projects, I understand and share the concern over having multiple
> different "entry points" for translators to contribute to a project.
> Having said that, however, there is absolutely no difference between
> Transifex, Pootle, or DL as far as adding complexity to the process of
> translations.
> Bear with me here, as I try to explain my logic using a couple of scenarios:
> Damned Lies: contributors have to register with DL and then ask to be
> added to a "team" in order to use the web interface to reserve a
> package for translation. All the work is done offline and then
> uploaded back to a "holder area" where committers (i.e. those who have
> a git account on have to manually do their review,
> clone, merge, and push back to the repository. However, nothing stops
> anyone from cloning the git repository, doing their work offline and
> submitting it back via bugzilla.

As a translation coordinator, I never know that people are allowed to
submit translations to bugzilla that goes into the tree without language
coordinator approval, so the fore mentioned scenario is unlikely to
happen, and if it did (like when some one imported translations from
launchpad without language coordinators approval), it'll be reverted
back. We have l10n teams for a purpose, you know.


 Khaled Hosny
 Arabic localiser and member of team
 Free font developer

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]