Re: Debian Debconf Translation proposal ( again )

[cobaco <cobaco@linux.be>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2004-01-07 20:35, Dominique Devriese wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst writes:
> >> I don't think the little amount of extra checks on the translations
> >> is worth the enormous administrative workload on the translators.
> >> Please reread Tim Dijkstra's post, and imagine having to do that
> >> checklist 10000 times for every single Debian package. ( Not sure
> >> about the number ).
> >
> > Well, I am: it's wrong. If it happens a few times during a single
> > release cycle per package, that's a lot. Heck, we don't even have
> > packages that reach that number in bare uploads, let alone uploads
> > that include a string change in debconf templates.
>
> And here I should have been more clear too.  I meant 10000 times in
> total, I didn't mean 10000 times per package.  You're right though
> that 10000 packages should be multiplied by the amount of changes in
> templates, so this would amount to, say, 20000 bugs that every
> translation team would have to file for every Debian release.
> Multiply that by the amount of languages in the world ( or, let's say,
> e.g. those for which it would be more or less useful to provide a
> translation, say, 50 ), and we reach a number of one million bugs that
> would have to be opened per Debian release, for translation only.
>
> You can argue about the numbers, of course, there are a lot of
> packages without templates etc., but I don't think you'll be able to
> get lower than, say 2000 bugs per language per release.  I don't think
> it is realistic to expect such amounts of work from translators.

actually a growing number of maintainers will email the last translator 
asking for an updated translation before they upload something with string 
changes, which is a win-win situation:
1. since he doesn't need to make extra uploads for the translations the 
maintainer needs to do less work
2. the translators don't need to bother with submitting a bug report
- -- 
Cheers, cobaco
  
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
    format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE//SEu5ihPJ4ZiSrsRAgQKAJ0ZF5SK/ASP0zW0sAygkqA1KvxA/gCfS65f
1qmKVGuLRQzzxLKkJcmAMf8=
=OlWq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----