Hi! > That's true. But if you have users, it does not automatically mean > you'll have bug reports. Yes, you'll get some of them but it is not > clear if it would be enough. From the past I know most of translation > bugs we found were found during the translation update by translators or > during the review. Our user base is far smaller than German or even > Czech. Note that this is not about the major things (because they will be resolved during review) but about some remaining issues where translators might have had a wrong thought. And people file more bug reports than you think. > > there won't be any users and thus no bug reports. So, I would encourage > > you to drop the final review stage (now). > > To have this done I would have to set up more strict rules to become a > reviewer. I opted for different approach: to allow all members to try to > do the reviewer's job to see how it will go. > > This allows us to catch at least some bugs by current reviewers. And > this brings up a chance for potential good reviewer to show and improve > his work. In case I would allow to review only members to whom I can > trust the proces would slow down even more. Sorry, I see a big problem here. You seem to trust very few people and this will cause problems in an open-source projects. You simply need to trust that people are willing to do good work and they will improve over time. > This is not like launchpad. I agree. But the difference is not very big. > To have started a translation you just need to register to the Damned > Lies, join the team, reserve for translation and submit a po file. You > can do it in few minutes. I do not know how launchpad works, but I think > it would be similar easy. Yeah, but you have a po file then. That's great as it brings you a translation for free if the person joins the team or not. There is no point in rejecting those translations just because people didn't want to join the team fully. (Of course, they should fix their stuff when it gets reviewed). Also you didn't answer my inital question if you could drop the formal introduction mail. > Unfortunatelly, this is not true. Sometimes the workflow knowledge of > new members is poor. They managed to translate and upload the file? What else do they need to know about the workflow as long as they aren't reviewers/committers? Please note that translating the file means that you already had to setup lots of things. > We had several people who joined the team via Damned Lies and nothing > else. After some time I asked them whether they really wants to became a > members and help with translations and asked for subsequent > actions tobe done (bugzilla account, mailing list subscription). > No answer for more than a week or two. So I removed such people > from the team and sent a mail stating the reasons. After that > they just replied they are ok with the removal because they have > no free time to do anything with the translations now. This is > quite often. It is easy to have dozens of team members listed at > the team page... see above. > I agree. Now, we are in process to have such rules set up. I really wonder that you don't already have translation rules? How did you manage to do things in the past? I think every half-way solid GTP-Team has at least some list of most-used terms. > > Reviewers will notice when there is an inconsistency within the strings > > and are able to point that out. I think most teams have no problem in > > sharing modules between different translators. > > True. This is why I am doing now final review for all modules. I hope > this will change soon. The reviewers != you - trust in them, they know the language! > I disagree. It depends. Other translators can select other modules, so > the rules are same for everybody. > > Some people does like to feel that this module is their work and they > are responsible and proud for them. That's ok, but they should then be able to provide a 100% translation by release date and if they cannot do that they will have to give up the module or at least open it for others. Thanks and regards, Johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part