On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 07:57, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Dimitris et al, > > [+CC: Git List; for wider exposure] > [+CC: Jonathan Nieder; he has been involved with translations in the past] > [+CC: Junio C Hamano; for authoritative policy advice] > > I think it's a good idea to use a system like Transifex to manage > translations for git.git, so that we can attract a large number of > non-technical translators. ÂFurther, I think it's a good time to start > off on this now, since many of the i18n bits from Ãvar's series are in > 'master'. ÂSo, I'm looking to start off a discussion about how to > adapt a translation system into our current patch workflow. ÂDimitris > is the lead developer of Transifex, and can help with the details. Turns out I have two E-Mails related to this in my inbox. Below follows the reply I sent to the other one in private mail, but applies here too: """ Sorry, I didn't have time to look at this at the time. I think it's really interesting, having translations be easier to manage is definitely something we want so that mortals can contribute translations to git. I hadn't followed up on this because git.git still doesn't have strings marked up for translation. We have the C bits of that, but the patch series for the shellscripts is still in flight. After that I was going to submit some more patches to add the initial po/*.po files, after which I think considering having a web interface like this would make sense. Here's a couple of things though: * I don't want people to *have* to use any one interface. As far as I'm concerned the canonical way to submit translations is just to check out git.git's master branch, run "make pot", and then submit a patch for a PO file to the list. Of course we can *also* support doing that through a web UI, the web UI is after all just a fancy way of replacing your $EDITOR. But I don't think we should be tied to any one UI. I.e. people should be able to take git.pot and edit it everywhere, and a web UI like Transifex can't assume that it e.g. won't have to resolve conflicts because something changed upstream. * Any way of editing the translations will have to comply with git's normal patch submission process. When you normally submit a patch to Git you have to write a sensible commit message for it, change one logical thing at a time, and you have to agree to the contributor's agreement by adding a Signed-off-by to your Git commit. I think this will probably clash head-on with how any web translation UI with its own user accounts, no way to enter commit messages etc. will work. """ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html