Re: For translators: Midnight Commander on Transifex.net

[Morten Bo Johansen <mbj spamcop net>]

Dimitris Glezos <glezos indifex com> wrote:

> I am coming late to the discussion, and sorry for the non-threaded
> reply headers (if anyone knows how to properly reply to a thread
> started before one subscribed to mailman, I'm all ears!)

I use gmane - gmane.comp.gnome.apps.mc.devel. This would solve this
problem.

> Slava, I hear some of your concerns. It's true that the Translation
> Project has served us very well in being an upstream projects to host
> translations. With Transifex we have tried to follow this good example,
> and instead of just providing a tool to 'translate stuff', we have
> deployed Transifex.net as an common hub for upstream translations.

I think the concerns were mostly mine, but I hope that I did not sound as
if I was badmouthing Transifix. I think your efforts are laudable.
However, my concerns still stand. To me, Transifix would be great to e.g.
a group of people who decided to get together and translate a host of
programs in a particular category or with some shared background, e.g.
the whole suite of programs in the xfce4 desktop environment. Then you
can create a group on Transifix, only concentrating on this task and
avoid the noise on the general mailing lists of the language teams

In the case of MC, I think the advantages are in favor of the
Translation Project for the reasons that I have already offered:

- TP already hooked up with the general purpose language teams. Transifix
  is not.

- The language teams are mostly very active and this is where the work
  is being done for apps such as MC. Please go to gmane.org and limit the
  lists to the word "internationalization" and browse through the
  mailing lists of each country.

- TP is reliable and has been in existence for many years.

> Additionally, since Transifex connects directly to the repository
> system, you can even use it in parallel to other tools, so it doesn't
> get in your way. Having a choice is a good thing right? I mean, some
> people prefer a web editor, some others prefer an offline one. And some
> people hate both Transifex as well as the Translation Project. =)

The problem with Transifix is that it is not coordinated with the general
purpose language teams. This means that some random dude can go to work
on MC on Transifix while at the same time, the translation is really
being maintained on those mailing lists. The result is redundant work and
people being pissed off.

> In the end, it all boils down to people. Always. Teams can choose to
> only have a few committers. They can discuss things on a list. They
> can have rules needed to be followed before committing, like offline
> translation and testing. You can be the coordinator for your team for
> MC, define your own rules, and choose who can commit. Team
> coordinators can have full power on who can commit to their files.

Yes, but a whole team just for MC hardly makes sense ...

> It's awesome that the TP has worked great for your team, but I don't
> think this is the case for the whole translation community. I believe
> that having per-project teams is vital for a good coordination, high
> participation and increased security.

I agree with you, your project certainly fills a void.

>> you cannot expect the same level of team participation in Transifix
>> as in the Translation Project which has been around since 1996.
>> Transifix, who knows, may be gone next year...

> /me crosses fingers this won't happen.

Me neither ;-)

> If you haven't done so already, I'd love if you gave Tx a fair
> test-run and report back with anything you'd like to see fixed! We're
> always open for suggestions!

If it is feasible for me to do so, I will. For my purposes so far, the
TP has worked very well.


Morten