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

Re: [faw@funlabs.org: Re: DDTP-Links on CDD tasks web pages]

Hash: SHA1

On 16-07-2008 10:54, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On 2008/7/16 Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote:
>>        Yes, but DDTSS is not a interface to provide descriptions
>> for CDD Task Pages
> Uhm, that's a really stupid argument.  

	Thanks, very kind of you to say so.

> I can only guess that you
> really missed the point of my effort to HELP translating package
> descriptions.  Is it so hard to understand that people involved in a
> certain topic are potentially good translators?  Is your team really
> that strong that you can refuse the help of these people?  The
> numbers of translated descriptions are not impressive enouth
> to draw this conclusion.

	First of all, I don't think you really understand the
Brazilian scenario to draw any conclusions, pt_BR is a very
active team regarding DDTP (and has been for quite some time),
and yes, "packages of special interest for some CDD tasks"
really gave us twice as much work when the "first script"
start crawling the DDTSS and we had to block Alioth because
of it.

	As Helge pointed out, deeply knowing a subject doesn't
mean that someone are good translators, in fact, the two
things are orthogonal, we had find good replies and reviews
from "interdisciplinary" mailing lists.

	Anyway, the point is not determine if a team needs
help, I believe that most teams would agree that we really
need more human power, the point is that DDTSS was created
as tool for translators, not as an interface for another
page, right now, it lacks the ability that you desire,
sorry if it is not what you want to hear, as already said,
the behavior right now, gives extra work for the teams
instead of helping them.

	Right now (and once again, like in the first try)
I believe the real problem is a "communication" one, so,
would you be kind to explain what in DDTSS doesn't fulfill
your expectations?

>> and it is not the first time they got abused.
> Yes.  That's why I'm trying since 10 days [1] to find out what
> might be the correct way to support you properly but got no
> reasonable response until now.  Can you please be so kind
> and say exactly whether what I'm doing is abuse (nobody really
> told me so up to now) and what actually the abuse is?

	The initial abuse was loading *twice* a day
descriptions that were already translated, what most of
us is trying to do is avoid that once again, that's
why Michael asked to not force loading the already
translated file.

	I'm not sure about other teams, but "coordination"
is always appreciated, so simply "fixing" a description
without discussing it before is not exactly the best way
to go, if there is a different consensus, loading the
description would simply mean re-reviewing it to get rid
of it from the "working to do".

	So, how exactly you want to support us? Wouldn't
point people to mail lists and DDTSS be good enough? If
it is a "hit-and-run" fix it might not be desirable. :-(

>> DDTSS is a Translation Tool,
> Great - I would like to attract translators - so what????

	Tell them how to use DDTSS and how to contact the
translation teams to coordinate their work. There is some
discussion about adding a "header" for the translation
pages that could be used by the translation teams as an
information point to new translators.

>> ddt.cgi has a different interface and
>> can certainly provide the translations required.
> Well, if you would have done a look at the links to the tasks
> pages you would have seen that the "required" translations
> are just obtained and they are obtained the way I was recommended
> here by parsing the translation files.  I would be very happy if you
> try to make some accusations after checking the facts.  All the
> fuzz is exactly about fixing broken translations in the DDTP database
> and I wonder whether my ability to speak English is insufficient to
> explain this here on this list. :-((

	I didn't make any accusations and I didn't read
the code that generates the task pages I just pointed
out that ddt.cgi has a different interface from DDTSS
that might be what you are looking for, after all, DDTSS
used ddt.cgi in the principles, now it is integrated.

	You want to fix a broken translation, just do
what we do, load it into DDTSS and fix it, but it is
important to coordinate it with the Translation Team,
some teams have standard practice to review similar
problems in various packages.

>>        Now, this is a "feature request" as pointed out by Michael,
>> right now, there is no "magic" URL that interfaces with the CDD
>> desired model of work, and the "click-n-run" behavior adds a
>> burden to the translation teams because those packages are always
>> popping up on their "pending translation list" and in a lot of
>> cases they are not the priority of the translation teams.
> Well, on what list do you think should a fix for a broken translation
> apear.  What exactly is the priority of the translation teams if it
> are not translations that are not correct and some kind soul tries
> to provide a fix.  Are we talking about cooperation in Free Software
> world or are there some different principles here???

	Translation teams have their priorities, it is
related to the priorities of the packages and POPCON500,
some teams take an alphabetical approaches, some teams
uses a "suite approach" (packages related to firefox).

	Now, imagine if you link to a package using
"force fetch" and people just click to see it, it will
load the translation without nothing to fix, it is not
about "fixing' things, it is about reviews unnecessary
files (and some teams have only one or two people).

>>        If those "experts" wants to help, why they can't join the
>> translation teams, or why can't we point them to a Wiki page that
>> clearly explains what must be done regarding DDTSS translation
>> until we can provide the desired behavior from DDTP and/or DDTSS.
> I have no idea why you are a providing a web interface for translations
> without sufficient description and you give me the impression that this
> should not be used.  The more I dive into this the more I wonder whether
> you need people who try to translate.

	I have no idea why you think it doesn't have
enough description, some teams are using it and we
have been working to improve in the last two years
and DDTSS is a very good interface for most of the
teams, it helped a lot of them in the review cycle.

	As I said, people that wants to translate
should join the teams, I don't believe in "isolated"
contributions without coordinating to the team, even
for POs or PO-debconfs, it usually need some sort of
review from other team members.

> Grisu, if this whole CGI stuff should not be used do you think it is
> better to generate a mail and let the user use the mail interface
> to provide translations?

	Unilaterally "fixing" the translations without
coordinating such changes is not the way to go. :-(

Kind regards,
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: