Hi! > Kenneth Nielsen <k.nielse...@gmail.com>, Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:45:02 +0200: > >> 2010/10/4 Johannes Schmid <j...@jsschmid.de>: >> > Hi! >> > >> >> Clutter is still hosted on a separate server because the Clutter >> >> Project wants to be an umbrella for a set of projects, like language >> >> bindings, toolkits, and applications that may or may not be related >> to >> >> the GNOME Project. we're fairly liberal with giving people access to >> >> the repository, and we have infrastructure in place for user >> >> repositories for contributors. the Bugzilla instance is still in >> place >> >> because Clutter is used in non-GNOME projects that might need >> >> restricted access. >> > >> > I want to raise the point again, that the separate git server is >> painful >> > for translators which is the main reason that I dislike it. (see >> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2010-July/msg00075.html and >> > follow ups) >> > >> > Basically the point is that if we allow core modules to be hosted >> > elsewhere we can shut down the GNOME Translation Project as it exists >> > now completely because our whole quality work with coordinators and >> > reviewers will become obsolete. GNOME has a very long and good >> > tradition of high-level and consistent translations which would get >> > lost. >> > >> > The point is not that important for clutter which probably doesn't >> > contain many user visible strings but if we they yes here it will be >> > difficult to say no with other modules. >> > >> > Needless to say that I of course in general like the idea of having >> > clutter as a core module. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Johannes >> >> I agree with Johannes, especially about the quality. As an easy fix >> for this, couldn't we just keep the translations in a git.gnome.org >> module? It would not allow us to run intltool-udpate and all that, but >> that would probably be ok as long and the maintainers would fetch new >> translations and update translation files with new strings regularly. > > Oh, so here we go again. Thanks for raising this issue, guys. I'm, too, > convinced that it's important for the future of the GTP and GNOME > translation teams to decide what should we require from core GNOME modules > (or however we label/define it). > > I'm not really sure whether it's realistic to expect any [code hosting] > infrastructure movement in this case, but as Aron Xu suggested the last > time > this discussion came up, we could try to propose doing the clutter l10n > management the system-tools-backends way, i.e. maintaining a Git clone on > git.gnome.org. > > Certainly, clutter is a fairly different piece of software, and this > cloning > workflow may have some clear shortcomings. E.g. maintenance burden for > developers, depending on developers' time, no guarantee of up-to-date POT > files, as our translators are used to and expect it esp. when dealing with > tight deadlines, that is every six months. > > If nothing more, we could at least persuade developers to stick to the > more > closely managed module l10n community (if such a word is appropriate > here), > so to not allow anyone on the net to submit translation work with, from > the > GTP perspective, varying quality.
Moving this discussion back to desktop-devel-list where it should have stayed with a CC'd gnome-i18n. Regards, Johannes _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
