On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 20:26 +0800, joel.gump wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Some random questions... > > > > 1) Would you, as a translator, be OK with having to use git, mercurial, > > subversion, or cvs, depending on which app you're translating? > > > > subversion/cvs OK. I would be happy with either git, mercurial, etc, if they help the developers to be more productive or it simplifies the infrastructure. However, the respective tools should be available as packages in Fedora and can be easily installed. In addition, the commands that the translator should be exposed to for the translation work should be simple and well-explained. > > 2) Would you, as a translator, be OK with doing all translating through > > a web-based application? Web-based translation has lower responsiveness, when going from one message to the next. Other tools (Rosetta, Pootle) require by default to use the mouse to go to the next message. I find that too distracting. I would see a web-based application beneficial if it allows the team leader to pick and choose those translation domains to make available for web-translation, get many people to contribute in parallel, then export the .po file for final checking and submission. In other works, it would be desirable if the web-application had these modes of working: 1. Completely bypass the web-application, use as now. 2. The team leader picks those packages and makes available through the web-based application. The web-based application allows work in parallel and many submissions, then the team leader to view and pick the appropriate choice. She then may hit an option to send the translation upstream, or export as .po file and upload using svn, cvs, etc. 3. Complete web-based translation. No requirement to deal with version control systems. I recognise that all this may add too much complexity to the translation system. Simos
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part