I would be an advocate of trying out a solution like Weblate. I agree with guruguru and R.J. and don't think translators should really have to worry about things like GIT. The web interface will definitely make it easier to jump in for newcomers. This would be mostly a lot of work for bcooksley, so we would have to see if this is something he wants to spend time trying to set up.

Scott

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:50 AM Quiralta <rjquiralte@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Boudewijn, Krita team:

I concur with Guruguru, that the website option would attract more people to contribute. I myself am pretty much in the same situation as Guruguru regarding the translation, although in our case (spanish) I seen more activity from the KDE team. Also I have no real preference of those two methods and I think both has pros and cons.

Having a git repo allows (I think) more control of who does what, but obviously for a non tech translator, getting familiar with the whole way phabricator works is a learning curve they may feel not worth it, and thus dropping the chance to contribute. Now if the intention is to get people who is already familiar with this method and projects to do so (like the kde translation teams), then this would be the best solution.

The website front end seems easy to the casual translator, if the intention is to get as many people as possible to help out, but I'm not sure how much effort and money from Krita needs to be used for it, and how easy is to administrate to keep the things coherent, thus how sustainable it is as we think into the future, wouldn't be good to make people get used to a workflow just to change it a year later, etc. I'm pretty sure you guys already discussed this but just mention it for the records. 

All in all, I think the manual needs the most attention, having access to a manual cant get people around using Krita even when the program itself is in English, the other way around isn't much help, as many times terms are rare at best when not meaningful. Thus whatever method you guys choose is going to be a step forward by simple making the manual accessible to more people (as it gets translated) and in turn more people would get enthusiastic about the whole Krita project. A least that's what I think. :)

R.J. Quiralta

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 3:53 AM guru guru <guruguru.sp@outlook.jp> wrote:
Hi Boud,

My two cents...

If possible I think a website frontend solution would be better - it would be more accessible to new translators, I hope.
* put a convenient website such as weblate (https://weblate.org) on top, so
translations can be done in their browser.

Well, the current situation for Japanese is:
I have not seen Tokiedian, the other Japanese contributor for 1+ year(he was
the one who worked on application, he did website translations, too).
I myself do not have a contact with KDE JP user group at all. (it's mailing list and page seem mostly inactive)

I've been really busy lately. I can still work on occasional release announements(with reduced scope, without full bug fix list translation...),
but I doubt I can tackle on full manual translation right now.

So, if there would be a translation frontend website, and if I can welcome new translators there,
probably that can bring... some more hope for Japanese.(I know translator volunteers are kinda rare, though)

That's my current thought, and sorry for not being able to help much,

guruguru
From: kimageshop <kimageshop-bounces@kde.org> on behalf of Boudewijn Rempt <boud@valdyas.org>
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019 2:08 PM
To: kimageshop@kde.org
Subject: Translating docs.krita.org
 
We've had this  discussion on translating the manual for quite some time now,
without an effective solution.

The KDE system for working with translations is based on subversion. There are
shell scripts that call shell scripts in the git repositories, generate pot
files, submit those to subversion, where teams can start translating them.
There is no provision, other than the release scripts for pulling the
translations back into the git repository.

For the docs.krita.org site we need to have the pot files inside the git
repository, so would make sense to skip the whole subversion step. That breaks
the workflow of the KDE translators, though that workflow is already broken
for wiki sites and wordpress sites, so the question is, how much of a problem
would this be?

We have two options:

* let translators just clone the docs-krita-org repo and make them create
review requests through phabricator.
* put a convenient website such as weblate (https://weblate.org) on top, so
translations can be done in their browser.

Note: we also regularly get questions from people who want to translate Krita
itself, and who find the current KDE system unworkable.

--
https://www.valdyas.org | https://www.krita.org