Re: Debian Debconf Translation proposal ( again )
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:47:51PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> This proposal trades maintainer convenience for translator convenience,
Not really, maintainers continuously told in this thread that current
scheme puts no extra workload on translators.
> 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.
And which one gives best results? Figure show KDE, so let's change our
development model to improve our quality. One important point is to
allow translation updates in stable releases. It was said that this is
not doable because builds are fragile and rebuilding new packages may
introduce new errors. But for l10n files (and in particular debconf
templates), an updated package has to change the control.tar.gz section
and changelog.Debian in data.tar.gz. Binary packages can be patched,
there is no need to rebuild new packages.
Denis
Reply to: