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

Re: Debian Debconf Translation proposal ( again )

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:57:28AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:04:15AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:55:20AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:23:45PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:10:01AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > > > And I replied that with Dominique's proposal, someone will have to
> > > > > build those l10n packages, so these errors will be caught as well.

> > > > They will definitely not catch all the errors I've caught in the
> > > > past. Sorry.

> > > *This* is laughable.

> > ... but true. As Steve Langasek noted, maintainers have a personal stake
> > in a package and personal familiarity with its code, so approach
> > translation review from a different angle.

> You should tell KDE folks that their l10n handling is dramatically
> flawed, giving more power to translators lower the quality of their
> project.  I am pretty sure that they will be happy to learn from us
> on how to improve their l10n.

> I forgot also to mention that contrary to your opinion, most errors in
> PO files for the debian-installer were not caught by maintainers but by
> people taking care of l10n.

There is no drama here, and I don't believe Colin was claiming that
maintainers catch *more* errors than translation teams do -- just that
maintainers are a useful resource for review that shouldn't be ignored.
The arrogance here seems to be in assuming that package maintainer's
couldn't *possibly* have anything to contribute to the quality of
translations, and therefore it's ok to design them out of the system.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpLCCrNnZURz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: