Hello,
> I have not followed the discussions so far in detail, but one thing I
> have missed so far (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I think that at the moment the main concern is the fundamental issues
of how to store translations and synchronize them with upstream.
Interfaces (there will be quite a few of them) are secondary and we
have not yet discussed them in detail. I'd prefer not to think about
them much right now ;) so as not to lose focus. Of course, your input
is always appreciated.
> IMO it should be possible to assign "ownership" for a specific
> translation to a specific translator. This owner should be able to
> control if he will allow modification of a translation by himself
> only, by a specific group of people ("authorized translators") or by
> all. Of course, the owner can also be a group.
>
> There are a lot of sensitive translations (because they have a very
> specific or technical context) for which you do not want just anyone
> to update translations.
Sure. I think that such packages are a minority though, and in general
the "team handles translations of all packages for a language" model
works pretty well. Your proposed model is actually more general. As
this is basically an interface issue, we can worry about such things
later, they will be easy to add.
> It is important that such translations can be managed using the same
> infrastructure as other, more "open" translations as translators can
> still benefit from the other features of the infrastructure while
> working on a "closed" translation.
Absolutely; as I said, I believe that this should be easy to integrate
later when we have the basics running. I will have this idea in mind.
--
Gintautas Miliauskas
http://gintasm.blogspot.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature