[Xfce-i18n] Transifex issue

[Per Kongstad]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dimitris Glezos wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Per Kongstad <p_kongstad at op.pl> wrote:
>> Og Maciel wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Per Kongstad <p_kongstad at op.pl> wrote:
>>>> The comment above is also related to the #325 which is planned to be
>>>> in milestone 9. Please have a look at it on transifex.net. To add
>>>> the solution to milestone 8 shouldn't be a big issue. I have raised
>>>> the issue also here on this list with a solution to no avail.
>>>> "We are not going to hack on Transifex" was the reply.
>>> I can understand this reply as if the problem exists, which seems to
>>> be the case, it is an upstream problem and not Xfce's. The correct
>>> thing to do is wait for Transifex to fix it and then get the update. I
>>> just took a look at issue #325 and sounds like it should be pretty
>>> easy to fix. Let me talk to the Tx guys about it today.
>> Still the same status after another month waiting! One have to show a
>> lot of patience for such a simple correction to be made.
>> So this raises the question if Transifex is the solution to go with.
>> Please don't get me wrong on this, but if simple solutions are not
>> implemented easy and fast how do you think more complex matters are
>> handled?
>
> Hi Per.
>
> Here's the thing. Like most open source projects, Transifex is openly
> accepting patches and contributions. I understand this is important
> for you, but to be fair, we haven't received many requests for it: It
> seems that the ticket still has only one comment and no patch
> attached, and didn't see any replies on this thread. Plus, as I
> already mentioned, I'd be happy to spend some time reviewing and
> merging a patch.
I just think it is confusing and time wasting to look through projects
listed for your language with missing translation just to find out
that no file for translation has ever been generated. If I look
through the mailing list for this mailing list I can find a few
confused mails for this issue.
>
> We're very quick in fixing things that are broken and security issues,
> and also providing the code to some tough Tx internal bits. But to be
> fair, this case doesn't seem one of these cases, but one of "no-one
> has the need to scratch this itch".
>
Fine and just like it should be.
>>>> My point is just that a translator most likely just want to have a
>>>> reliable system without having to know how it is working.
>>>> If you cannot have trust in the system and zero reaction for taking
>>>> care of them I'm pretty sure that many will just give up.
>>>> I'm starting to think this way myself.
>>> Please don't feel that way as the system is working for the most part
>>> really well. Now that we've started this thread we can get the right
>>> parties engaged and fix it really quick. I completely understand your
>>> frustration but believe me when I tell you that the Transifex guys do
>>> keep our (us translators) best interests at heart.
>> And on this part I disagree with you. The old system was more reliable
>> and did the work for translators. We have issues with .pot files
>> containing more strings than is found in the localized file. So now we
>> have to spend time on checking the stats to find out if translation is
>> complete. See this thread on the mailinglist '[Xfce-i18n] Entries
>> missing?'. So now we are doing more bookkeeping than translations!
>> Maybe it demanded some more handwork behind the scene.
>
> >From what I understand this isn't related to #325. If we had some more
> information about exactly what the problem is, maybe we could identify
> a solution.
Being a translator I have no access to go behind the scene and look
for this issue. Especially if this is due to an update of a .pot file.
If no one with these rights will look into an issue, how can we then
have it resolved.
So we just end up with 'Who cares - and fix it manually'.

My point is just that for having faith in stats they need to be
reliable and it should be easy to find discrepancy.
Maybe you should report the # of strings in both .pot and .po file.
That would make it easier to spot it.
Or any other marking.
>
> -d
>
>
/Per
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEUEARECAAYFAksOj7AACgkQ2y9v5yQlyH05DgCfU9VA5h9q0mXG3dorOtFsYHFh
k28AmI/aOuKqQiQWM3fuicfNc9h70j4=
=Pxbx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----