On 17/10/12 22:17, Andy Allan wrote:
On 16 October 2012 00:17, Tom Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
The way it works is this - you don't worry about translations as such at
all. You just make sure strings are translatable and we commit that and then
the translators get to work. Yes, when something new launches it will take a
while to get translated, but that is something we live with as a volunteer
project and it had worked perfectly well up to now.
It hasn't worked perfectly well up to now - as you've just described.
We should be able to make changes on a staging branch, get
translations sorted, and push live with as little untranslated
material as possible. The current situation, where it's impossible to
get translations ahead of merging into master, along with translation
updates being now-and-then rather than automatically fed back withing
a few tens of minutes, is less than ideal.
Well yes I'm sure it would be absolutely lovely if we could do all that
but I don't see it as realistic in a volunteer open source project.
Even if we had the technology you propose, how long do you think we
should wait in the hope that translations arrived before pushing
something like? Without paid translators we have no way of ensuring
timely translations even if we do all the things you suggest...
I would certainly have no objection to a platform that would be able to
feed things back more quickly, though 10 minutes might be rather painful
unless we move away from keeping the translations in git.
Having to push everything through a lengthy period on a staging branch
would be a major change in our modus operandi though, both in terms of
increasing the time it took for changes to make it to production and in
terms of significantly complicating my life.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes ([email protected])
http://compton.nu/
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
