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

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: Review process for translations
From:       Thiago Masato Costa Sueto <herzenschein () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-04-24 6:50:00
Message-ID: CAA=uvBer+m971cpmKAcLHoOWB1BVN1DnS9TDSP7k6WK5hxbAKA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hallo Frederik,

In the Brazilian Portuguese translation team we have a mailing list but
communicate primarily through a Telegram group, and so translators without
commit access usually just send the translated files in the group. Those
files would then be manually reviewed and the feedback would be given
before committing. A fairly person-to-person approach. Translators with
commit access just commit directly and may mention any translation issues
they find in the group for further discussion.

Back when Phabricator used to show SVN commits (and in a very neat fashion
in fact), after I got commit access, I'd usually mention my commits in the
group so the other more experienced translators would check if there were
any issues in my translations, it rendered some very nice feedback.

Cheers,
Thiago

Am Sa., 23. Apr. 2022 um 17:20 Uhr schrieb Frederik Schwarzer <
schwarzer@kde.org>:

> Hi,
>
> in the German translation we like to have some kind of review process
> so that we find errors before they make their way into SVN. We used
> reviewboard, which felt clunky. Now we are using Phabricator, which is
> not the most pleasant experience either. Also, Phabricator will go
> away soon'ish.
>
> So at the moment I am playing around with GitLab and its merge
> requests but the process of synchronising this with SVN would be bad.
>
> My question is: do other teams have some sort of review process and
> how does it look like?
>
> Cheers,
> Frederik
>
>
>

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hallo Frederik,</div><div><br></div><div>In the \
Brazilian Portuguese translation team we have a mailing list but communicate \
primarily through a Telegram group, and so translators without commit access usually \
just send the translated files in the group. Those files would then be manually \
reviewed and the feedback would be given before committing. A fairly person-to-person \
approach. Translators with commit access just commit directly and may mention any \
translation issues they find in the group for further \
discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>Back when Phabricator used to show SVN commits \
(and in a very neat fashion in fact), after I got commit access, I&#39;d usually \
mention my commits in the group so the other more experienced translators would check \
if there were any issues in my translations, it rendered some very nice \
feedback.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Thiago<br></div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Sa., 23. Apr. 2022 um 17:20  \
Uhr schrieb Frederik Schwarzer &lt;<a \
href="mailto:schwarzer@kde.org">schwarzer@kde.org</a>&gt;:<br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br> <br>
in the German translation we like to have some kind of review process <br>
so that we find errors before they make their way into SVN. We used <br>
reviewboard, which felt clunky. Now we are using Phabricator, which is <br>
not the most pleasant experience either. Also, Phabricator will go <br>
away soon&#39;ish.<br>
<br>
So at the moment I am playing around with GitLab and its merge <br>
requests but the process of synchronising this with SVN would be bad.<br>
<br>
My question is: do other teams have some sort of review process and <br>
how does it look like?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Frederik<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div></div>



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