[Freeipa-devel] [PATCH] 0066 Arrange stripping .po files

[Petr Viktorin]

On 07/24/2012 01:12 AM, John Dennis wrote:
> On 07/23/2012 06:27 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> As a translator (for another project), I don't like Transifex and prefer
>> to send good old Git pull requests. I understand a "traditional"
>> workflow is hard to coordinate with others that use Transifex, but still
>> I'd hate it if we became dependent on Tx.
>
> For better or worse we are dependent on TX (Transifex). Fedora has
> adopted TX as it's translation tool, RHEL's translation tools integrate
> with TX (as well as other translation portals). And SSSD and IPA have
> made a a commitment to TX based on the direction of Fedora and RHEL.
>
> Given that we've adopted TX I don't see the value in maintaining tools
> that support both TX and non-TX workflows. I'd rather see us delete the
> non-TX elements. If we have just one workflow it's easier to understand
> and maintain the code. If we ever decide we need to go back to a non-TX
> workflow we can always retrieve the deleted code from git.
>

This means you have to be a member of a Fedora translation team to 
translate. It makes it harder for people to fork the project. A workflow 
with a mandatory central repository makes it impossible to experiment 
locally.
I'm all for having a standard way to receive contributions, but limiting 
how people can create those contributions isn't good.

I'm all for deleting unused code, but here I think it would be a bad move.


-- 
Petr³