On Tuesday 17 of March 2020 21:50:13 E. Liddell wrote: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 10:03:41 +0100 > > Slávek Banko <slavek.banko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 of March 2020 05:15:37 Michele Calgaro via trinity-devel > > > > wrote: > > > > --4. How to organize translation files in source git repositories? > > > > > > > > Currently, the organizing of the translation files is > > > > inconsistent. Therefore, it seems appropriate to harmonize the > > > > layout of directories with translations. > > > > > > > > Here are a few of the variations used: + po/<lang>.po + > > > > po/<lang>/<app>.po + translations/<lang>/<app>.po + > > > > translations/<lang>/messages/<app>.po > > > > > > > > For desktop file translations, all languages are required to be > > > > located in the same directory, named in accordance with the > > > > language. For example: > > > > > > > > + po/desktops/<desktop-name>.pot + > > > > po/desktops/<desktop-name>/<lang>.po > > > > > > > > Do you prefer the directory name "po" or "translations"? In this > > > > directory, it seems to me a good breakdown by purpose - > > > > "messages", "desktops", because this will allow in the future to > > > > add "docs", "manpages". The structure could look like this: > > > > > > > > po/desktops/abakus.desktop.pot > > > > po/desktops/abakus.desktop/<lang>.po po/messages/abakus.pot > > > > po/messages/abakus/<lang>.po > > > > > > > > What is your opinion? > > > > > > How about this? > > > > > > translations/desktop_files/pot/<all pot files of the module> > > > translations/desktop_files/<lang>/<all po files of the module for > > > the language> translations/messages/pot/<all pot files of the > > > module> translations/messages/<lang>/<all po files of the module for > > > the language> > > > > I have no objections to any of the options to use short 'po' and or > > long 'translations'. The only important thing is that we find the > > consensus and then unify it in all modules. Similarly to 'desktops' > > × 'desktop_files'. > > Not going to chime in on the rest, since it has little to do with me, > but I also vote for "translations". The problem with using "po" is that > it doesn't make it clear what the files are unless you already know how > the translation system works. Also, the meaning of "po" might become > opaque if details like the file extension used by the system change, so > "translations" is more future-proof. > Very good reasoning, thank you! It seems that we have drawn a consensus here. > E. Liddell > Cheers -- Slávek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
