Re: Transifex instance for GNOME
- From: Dwayne Bailey <dwayne translate org za>
- To: gnome-i18n gnome org
- Subject: Re: Transifex instance for GNOME
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:09:22 +0200
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 13:53 +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
> 2010/10/15 Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny eglug org>:
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:26:40AM +0200, Kenneth Nielsen wrote:
> >> WOW easy does it. It sounds a bit like we have already made the
> >> decision. This should be discussed thoroughly before we decide
> >> anything or ask people to do work on it.
> >> While I can certainly support the idea of of-loading work from Claude
> >> and others, we need to carefully consider the functionality, because
> >> right now we have something that works for almost all that we want to
> >> do, and we do not want to go backwards on that account.
> >> Claude writes that while functionality may differ, that it might be ok
> >> as long as the total functionality is high. I only partly agree with
> >> that. I think there is some functionality that is _essential_, and if
> >> that can not be implementer then we should not move.
> >> The functionality that I am talking about is simple though and pertain
> >> to the fact that we work a lot more with sets that with individual
> >> packages. We have to be able to have overviews of sets of modules,
> >> (and it would also be nice to have overviews of the overview),
> >> including translations status in the same screen, the same way we have
> >> today. This is so essential to the way we work that we, in my opinion,
> >> cannot do without.
> > I was about to say some thing along these lines, but you summarised it
> > better than what I would have done. I just want to added that every time
> > I use Transifex I find its UI very confusing and things that can be
> > simply achieved with damned-lies are either impossible or done in a very
> > convoluted way. I fail to say what features Transifex offers that we
> > need; we neither need the complex multi-project multi-team
> > multi-workflow setup nor the near useless online translation tool (if we
> > ever need one, then IMHO only Pootle is worthy consideration currently).
> Well I should say, that I am not necessarily against. I just want us
> to consider our options carefully.
I would support that since I do some translation on GNOME and develop on
Pootle works quite well for a number of people out there both small and
Interestingly I've seen many communities make long feature list, e.g.
commit to version control, which Pootle was the first to support. So a
community process to decide what features are needed by GNOME is a step
which I seem to think has been missing here.
> Regarding advantages, it would be to be part of a larger community
> centered around the tool. The way it is now, if we want a new feature
> then we should either write it ourselves or ask Claude, who probably
> already have enough to do.
Associate Research Director +27 12 460 1095 (w)
Translate.org.za ANLoc +27 83 443 7114 (c)
Recent blog posts:
* Localizing Mac OS X strings files using open source PO editors
* What's new in Virtaal 0.6.1
* Localisation: How we guess the target translation language in Virtaal
Firefox web browser in Afrikaans - http://af.www.mozilla.com/af/
African Network for Localisation (ANLoc) - http://africanlocalisation.net/
] [Thread Prev