Re: Moduleset Reorganization vs. L10N

[Gil Forcada <gforcada gnome org>]

El dt 12 de 10 de 2010 a les 16:03 +0200, en/na Vincent Untz va
escriure:
> Le mardi 12 octobre 2010, à 12:10 +0200, Claude Paroz a écrit :
> > b) we enforce a GNOME stats/translation tool, and we make the necessary
> > steps so as it supports distributed development. For example, that could
> > mean that the tool on l10n.gnome.org hosts an i18n version of each tracked branch where
> > translations are committed by GNOME teams, and the modules have to merge
> > regularly this branch into main repositories (at least before each
> > release).
> > ++ single location for translators
> > - enforcing a special workflow for maintainers
> > - risk that maintainers omit to merge i18n branch
> > 
> > My preference is for b) as it is easier for translators: only one
> > workflow has to be handled.
> 
> b) sounds good, indeed. Note that you can make it easy for maintainers
> if we provide some Makefile rules that they can use to update the
> translations during "make dist".
> 
> (That's also what transifex wants to do in the future)
> 
> Vincent
> 

It wouldn't be easier(?) if the non-hosted git.gnome.org applications
have a git clone version on git.gnome.org which is cron-updated?

Then l10n.gnome.org should make commits in the git.gnome.org version and
the maintainer should only had to pick the translations from there.

Cheers,


-- 
gil forcada

[ca] guifi.net - una xarxa lliure que no para de créixer
[en] guifi.net - a non-stopping free network
bloc: http://gil.badall.net
planet: http://planet.guifi.net