Annoucement: New translation status page is installed

[Josep Puigdemont]

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...

> everyone is informed of who is doing what. You only have to [Take] a 

You can do that with too with translation teams.

> 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?

> 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.

  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.

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.

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.

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

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