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

Re: Ubuntu vs. Debian translations

On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:15:25PM +0100, Sebastian Heinlein wrote:
> It is the job of the corresponding translation team to push their
> changes upstream or the job of upstream to review and import them. I
> think that every Debian translation team knows of Rosetta. But I am not
> sure if all of them use Rosetta as a resource. I am aware of the quality
> argument.

That's certainly a flawed assumption. If you are providing translators an
amicable interface to avoid handling technical details you cannot expect them
to push things on to upstream. Try asking Rosetta's translation teams if they
know what "upstream" is for the packages they translate.

Likewise, upstream does not have to have any notion at all that Rosetta

It should be somebody else's job to push stuff back upstream or otherwise you
can find the un-funny situation in which somebody translates (for Ubuntu) an
application using Rosetta and somebody else translates the same application
but provides it upstream. When the application gets updated with upstream
sources either there is an inconsistency or all the changes from one of the
translators goes through the drain.

If translation teams were global (i.e. there would be a single translation
team per language for projects) Rosetta could be viable. Currently, however,
translation teams are created *around* projects. I.e. Debian has its own
translation team, so does KDE, so does GNOME, so does the FSF and so does (it
seems) Ubuntu. Any upstream can eventually get a "translation team" created
around it (such is the case, for example, for popular projects like Gaim).

The problem I see is this: the GNOME and KDE translation teams work on their
respective projects and so do the FSF translation team. The Debian
translation teams only works with Debian-related stuff (i.e. d-i, website,
documents, po-debconf and PO of Debian-specific packages), and in some
situations (when a translator spots a bug in a non-specific translation)
forward the issue back to the other projects be it the teams at GNOME, KDE,
the FSF or the upstream project itself. Sometimes this is done by the
translators (directly contacting the Last-Translator) and sometimes (when the
translators do not have a clue) it's the maintainer's job to forward that
information (typically received in the BTS)

However, the Ubuntu translation teams work actually overlap with *all* of
those projects. With no communication back to those projects the idea is
fundamentally flawed. And expecting translators (or upstream) to do the
communication is something that is not evident (I actually have seen no
notice in Rosetta to this regard when I first used it to see what it did).

> But it would be the best if there would be some communication between
> both teams. E.g. the German KDE and GNOME translators have got a
> representative in our German Ubuntu translators team and vice versa.

So are you suggesting that the language coordinators in Debian have to
join the language teams in Rosetta or, at the very least, act as a bridge
between translators there and translators in Debian?

That sounds really strange to me, it's like asking upstream maintainers in
Debian to subscribe to the BTS or else they will not get any notifications of
the bugs reported here.

Is that really how you think it should work?



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: