openoffice-l10n mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal: communications/workflow for new languages
Date Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:42:06 GMT
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, janI <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> On 23 February 2013 23:56, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Michael Bauer <fios@akerbeltz.org>
>> wrote:
>> > A common translator's tuppence on the issue. Most translators are not
>> > programmers and the more technical and convoluted an approach you take,
>> the
>> > more you narrow your potential translators down to that much smaller
>> pool of
>> > people who can do both code and translation.
>> >
>> > They also, for the most part, don't give a fig about what license
>> something
>> > is under. I realise that for the people running the project in question,
>> > issues of license exist but the translators on the whole just want to
>> see X
>> > in their language released.
>> >
>> > Thirdly, duplication is hugely frustrating for translators, especially
>> for
>> > people working in smaller languages. Having just "rescued" some Firefox
>> > translations from Launchpad, I can vouch for that.
>> >
>> > So what would be actually nice is if AOO and LO could agree on a neutral
>> > Pootle server which handles both AOO and LO strings and from which each
>> > project can extract whatever translations they require. Minimum
>> duplication
>> > and standard signup and translation process (none of this Bugzilla stuff
>> or
>> > the need for someone to extract po files, email them, translation offline
>> > and the the whole thing backwards to commit, if ever there was a
>> #facepalm
>> > process, that's it...), if needed, slap a notice email in the process
>> about
>> > how these will be used.
>> >
>>
>> These are all good points (and Claudio's points are good as well) but
>> they are not related to my proposal.  I was just suggesting a way in
>> which we can use Bugzilla improve communications and track progress on
>> the offline translation of the PO files.
>>
>> For example, suppose right now a new volunteer posts a note saying
>> they want to help with the Greek translation.  Where are the PO files?
>>  What other volunteers have started on this effort?  Who else has
>> expressed interest?  Today we need to search through list archives to
>> find these facts.  But if we had one Bugzilla issue per locale, then
>> we could track status there, including attaching files.  Volunteers
>> can also add themselves to the cc-list for the Bug to stay "in the
>> loop".  And they can even create sub-issues if they want to divide up
>> the work formally.
>>
> I have nothing against using bugzilla, that would be fine for me. We are
> soon at the point where po files are available in svn (they are on my local
> computer).
>
> An alternative to bugzilla, would be mwiki (not cwiki :-). We could move
> the translation page you have made, and attach po files...then we would
> only have the information in one place, and I am sure more people are used
> mwiki than bugzilla.
>

Is there a way wtih MWiki to get automatic notifications when there is
a status change on your language?  I think that is the strength of the
workflow tracking in BZ.  Someone can add themselves to the cc for the
Greek tracking issue and get all messages related to that translation
effort, without signing up for the L10n mailing list and without
needing to remember to check a wiki.

-Rob


> rgds
> Jan I
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> > Michael
>>

Mime
View raw message