Re: Annoucement: New translation status page is installed

[Bernd Groh <bgroh redhat com>]

Josep Puigdemont schrieb:

> On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 11:38, Bernd Groh wrote:
>  
>
> > If you have only 2 translators, then it may not be a problem, it gets 
> > more difficult with 10. And if you have 20+ translators to a language, 
> > peer-to-peer communication has proven not to be ideal. In this way, 
> >    
>
> I think we should have been consulted about this change before it was
> applied, no? Maybe you did and I missed it, sorry! After all, the
> translation project is a true community effort, and we might have
> something to say about what's best for us too...

I did this on request from a lot of people within the community, and I 
believed their reasoning to be very valid.


> > everyone is informed of who is doing what. You only have to [Take] a 
> >    
>
> You can do that with too with translation teams.

Of course you can, we simply agreed with a lot of the people from within 
the community, that it would be a very useful mechanism.


>  
>
> > module once, and then it belongs to you until the translation is 
> >    
>
> What if it never gets finished? Or never released, or someone else can
> translate it faster, or if it contains errors? Or if it does't use the
> same terminology/style as other translations?

If it doesn't get finished in time, we'll release it. If somone else can 
translate it faster, so what? And I don't think all the other problems 
are to be associated with the new system, you have the same problems 
without it.

>  
>
> > finished, or you [Release] it. We believed this mechanism to be 
> > extremely helpful.
> >    
>
> Maybe it is, but it causes some concern to me.
> When I joined the translation project for Fedora, I was told to get in
> contact with the people making the translation of the language I wanted
> to translate into. That way we would use de _same_ vocabulary, same
> terms, same style, etc... But with this new system, it will be possible
> to see more eclectic translations, and might not pass "quality" controls
> that some translator teams may have.

Why? Why does the new system keep you from communicating with other 
translators in your language?

>  As for our team (10-15 persons), the procedure is basically to assign
> a module to someone in the team, let him/her translate it, and finally
> post the translation to our list so everybody can review it, making sure
> the right terminology is used, and that there are no spelling or grammar
> errors, etc, and finally we commit it. Even with all this, errors occur,
> but many are hunted prior to the commit. We solve problems by having a
> coordinator, and a page with who is translating what, and status, much
> like your status page, but ours is crappier :)
>
> It is true that with the new system this can also be done, but it might
> not be enforced.

Who is actually commiting the files? Only the coordinator?


> On the other hand it restricts the assignment of modules to people using
> CVS. Just as an example, in our team we have some very good translators
> that use Windows, and have no idea about CVS or SSH keys, but are very
> valuable to us.

Who is commiting their files?


> IMHO, I think a better approach is that of the gnome translation
> project, having a coordinator for a language and making him/her commit
> the changes, but I believe Christian Rose has more to say if this is the
> case than I do.

The new system has the option of a maintainer. I can simply set the 
coordinator the maintainer of all modules of a certain language, and 
this maintainer then has full access to the cvs for that language. In 
how is that different to what gnome is doing? Nobody keeps only one 
person from commiting. We simply disallow two non-maintainers from 
commiting at the same time.


> And just out of curiosity, are new maintainers automatically subscribed
> to the translation list at fedora-trans-list redhat com?

No.

Regards,
Bernd

> My 2 cents...
>
> Regards,
>
> /Josep
>
>  
>
> > Regards,
> > Bernd
> >
> > Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan schrieb:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > Sulyok Peti wrote:
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > My opinion is that conflicts should be resolved according to the docs of
> > > > CVS. By using this take-over tech. teamwork has to be done outside CVS,
> > > > or by using another CVS repository. This might be painful for teams
> > > > working on the large PO files like dist and anaconda.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Peti
> > > >        
> > > Agreed. Previously, I and another Malay translator working together 
> > > with anaconda totally using CVS. No issue about take over. Both 
> > > updates their own tree and resolve any conflict prior to committing 
> > > new translation. It works well and we manage to complete it before FC2 
> > > release.
> > >
> > > I don't see the benefit of the take over mechanism here. Can anybody 
> > > explain?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > -----
> > > Sharuzzaman Ahmat Raslan
> > >      
>
>
>
> --
> Fedora-trans-list mailing list
> Fedora-trans-list redhat com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-trans-list
>  


--
Dr. Bernd R. Groh                       Phone : +61 7 3514 8114
Software Engineer (Localization)        Fax   : +61 7 3514 8199
Red Hat Asia-Pacific                    Mobile: +61 403 851 269
Disclaimer: http://apac.redhat.com/disclaimer/