L10N migration to transifex.net
thomas.canniot at mrtomlinux.org
Mon Feb 21 11:05:42 UTC 2011
Le 21/02/2011 08:12, Yuri Chornoivan a écrit :
> написане Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:10:55 +0200, Ricky Zhou
> <ricky at fedoraproject.org>:
>> Sorry to say this, but it's not quite a vote of confidence yet I'm
>> still trying to get more of a understanding on the reasons that some
>> people don't want to move to transifex.net.
> From the point of view of a translator (that is my private point of view):
> 1) transifex.net is as trashy as Launchpad was not in its wildest days.
> Anyone can register the project with no obligation to its translators at
> all. Noone looks at the licensing of these translations. Launchpad at
> least does not allow projects of "just for me" translations. If this
> practice on transifex.net will be continued, the server of the project
> become very overloaded by the trash.
> 2) Many developers seems do not care at all (or do not know anything)
> about updating the templates of their projects (packagekit,
> shared-mime-info, quassel, freeipa(?), et al.). I believe that current
> scheme of 1.0+ does not work and should be rearranged. It is very unusual
> for developers and translators.
> 3) Interface of 1.0+ is very crowded and overloaded. There is no way to
> switch back to classic interface. In Tx 0.9 it is suffice to push one
> button to do anything. In 1.0 you have to push two or more buttons to do
> the same thing. Search function does not work for localized messages.
> Translation memory does not work (anyway Lokalize do it in magnitudes
> better, but the fact is not very promising).
> 4) polib (the engine of new transifex) suffers from severe bugs due to
> implementation of some Python string functions. These bugs can lead to
> impossibility of localized Fedora installation.
> 5) Current t.fp.o installation "just works" regardless to the frustration
> that we have in the past.
> There is no time enough to test everything thoroughly before Lovelock will
> be released. The bugs in Fedora 15 can severely damage GNOME 3.0
> That is why I think that transition (even transition to 1.0 in t.fp.o)
> should be postponed to past Lovelock period.
> Best regards,
> Ukrainian translator
I'm very surprised about your reaction.
The l10n project ahs been requesting for help for about a year now. Now
that some solution has been found and decision taken, you seems to wake
up to disagree.
No perfect solution exists, what do you suggest according to YOUR time
and availability to make it work?
More information about the trans