This is a rather separate thread, so I'm replying to it seperately. Sven Neumann wrote: > > > For the HEAD branch, we should try to find a responsible translation > > > maintainer for each language. The language maintainer should have CVS > > > commit access and is responsible for coordinating his/her team of > > > translators. > > > > You've just described the GNOME Translation Project. > > hmm, not all of our translators are part of the GNOME translation > project and GIMP != GNOME. For that reason, I'd like to maintain a list > of language maintainers in the GIMP source tree. If the GNOME > translation project wants to take this job and thinks such a list is a > waste of time, this is something we can and should consider, but it > needs to be discussed. I cannot speak for all of the GNOME Translation Project (GTP; http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gtp/). However, what you described is confusingly similar to the GTP. Yes, GIMP != GNOME, but noone has to use GNOME to be a member in the GTP, nor do they have to contribute anything to GNOME at all, except the GIMP translation in this case if they want to do that. Also, GIMP uses GNOME CVS, and the GTP is basically just a collection of volunteering translators, some of them with GNOME CVS access, divided into ~40 language teams. Each team has a team coordinator that should keep track of who does what, and most teams also have at least one person with GNOME CVS access (often the coordinator), that can commit translations for their language team. So I don't see many reasons not to use this existing setup. Also, if you have trouble getting much else done besides committing translations that you recieve, I'd suggest also actively encouraging existing GIMP translators to try to submit their translations to their corresponding GNOME translation team so it can be committed that way, and only send it to you if that doesn't work. The people in the GNOME translation teams with CVS access do after all have CVS access because they should commit translations for their language. That's what they are supposed to do. :) I know there are different opinions on this, we've had an extensive debate on this in Galeon (hi Yanko! :) but IMHO this is policy that is suitable in many cases. It reduces workload for developers, and also encourages translators of the same language to work together and communicate, which in turn usually gives better translations. IMHO of course. Christian
