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

Re: Debian Debconf Translation proposal ( again )



On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:07:06PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 10:56:02AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [...]
> > > And you as maintainer are the only one who can do such a thing, wright;)

> > What basis do you have for presuming that a re-engineered translation
> > system designed to exclude package maintainers would catch such errors,

> Where did you see that package maintainers are excluded?  Are they
> blacklisted?  The proposal was about a public repository, so package
> maintainers can review them and send bugreports when they find errors.
> This is easily scriptable, blah blah...

This proposal trades maintainer convenience for translator convenience,
when with an equivalent amount of design & coding it would be possible
to develop a system that makes it convenient for *both* parties to be
involved in the process.

1) Make it easy for maintainers to make untranslated templates available
   to translators *before* uploading.  The GNU TP robot is an example of
   such a system; a project-wide CVS repo, such as what KDE has, is
   another example of this, but one which doesn't fit our development
   model very well.
2) Make translators aware of these untranslated templates.  Today, many
   maintainers have individual relationships with translators who have
   worked on their packages, but it's better to work through translation
   teams.  The best solution for Debian is a webpage that tracks status
   of translations, and makes .po files available for download.
3) Make it easy to review translations.  An email or web submission
   system for translated .pos, that updates the website, is ideal.
4) Make it easy to get translations to maintainers.  If maintainers can
   run a script to pull down all translation updates before uploading
   the package, there's no need to file bugs.  If scripting isn't
   likely, at least a by-package view of the website would help.
   Automatic emails to maintainers (preferably using the PTS) should
   also be possible.
5) File bugs on the slackers that remain.  These should be very few.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpg_uW0HKOt4.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: