[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: Translation verification: using diffs
From:       Chusslove Illich <caslav.ilic () gmx ! net>
Date:       2013-05-30 14:41:47
Message-ID: 201305301641.50503.caslav.ilic () gmx ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


> [: Dashamir Hoxha :]
> Regarding the approach that I described (using the sync/merge features of
> Lokalize). [...] I am not very familiar with the details of KDE
> translation process, and more importantly I have not actually tried it on
> KDE [...]

The approach you described, if I understood correctly, is exactly the
approach that Freek and mvillarino have described as using it. And I vaguely
recall from earlier threads that some other people are using it too. So it
can be said that it is used regularly for KDE too.

> It seems simple and intuitive to me [...] But I would also like to know
> when are the cases that it can fail, and how it can fail. Knowing these
> cases can be useful for deciding whether to use it or not in certain
> situations, when to use it and when not.

One little technical issue has been mentioned by Freek, that there is no way
to jump through messages with equal original and modified translation. This
issue is little in the sense of being fixable by adding one more action or
option in the Go menu, while for me the current state would be a deal-
breaker (I ask people to make whatever modifications they see as good,
whenever they get to it).

Instead, the main problems are conceptual. One problem is that people again
need to send PO files around, which breaks as soon as one wants to make
small updates to many files. Another problem is that a modified PO file is
either reviewed or not when committed, and that will cause review holdups,
or, worse yet more usual, less thorough reviews. Then, there is no effective
way for multiple people to perform review, for different types of
reviews[*], or for later double-check. Finally, there is no separation
between the editing system (translation editor) and the review system,
leading to monolithic-tool lock-in.

[*] This is actually the initial requirement I had, from which I grew the
ascription system in Pology.

> [...] and it can be used for any kind of .po files (not only for KDE).

The ascription system too can handle any kind of PO files, not only from
KDE. However, it does require the existence of by-language collections of PO
files inside a VCS repository, with commit/push access for recurrent
translators. That this is fulfilled up-front for KDE PO files is the great
strength of the KDE Translation Project.

-- 
Chusslove Illich (Часлав Илић)

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]