On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 17:34 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Dimitris Glezos (dimitris@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > Our translators have made it clear they want to use a SCM for the translations > > and said an *additional* web-based tool would be nice. So, let's first create > > our SCM and we'll see about whether we should use pootle. > > Use *one* SCM. How to gate currently hosted GIT/HG/etc into this is > unclear. :/ A first iteration at a solution could look like this: * Projects, regardless of SCM, generate POT file and use WUI or CLI to schedule pick-up of their POT into l10n.fp.o * l10n.fp.o has a WUI that sits in front of >1 SCM and has the ability to: - Translate through the WUI (download POT, upload PO) - Use one account (FAS) for all access (regardless of back-end SCM, it needs a *l10n group that all L10N members are within) - Provide statistics across all SCMs * For translators who want to use the CLI entirely for translations, they need to work directly with the SCM, however ... Note that I suggest a CLI for access to the same services the WUI is providing. The idea here would be to grow a CLI (fedoral10n?) that acts like the WUI - it interacts with >1 back-end SCM, uses FAS for auth+, etc. So, first feature of the fedoral10n CLI would be for developers (and scripts) to automate the management of POT/PO files. Second feature would be to give translators equivalent control that the WUI provides. This at least is my ideal. :) Now if I only new Python ... - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
