On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:55:41PM -0700, ext Quim Gil wrote: > - How valuable is to have an efficient tool for handling translations > between teams - as opposed to whatever process we have now? Are we happy > with the current system? Do we believe we would improve significantly > with a tool like Transifex? > not being a translator myself (except to help out with strings i have some relation to as the developer), i cannot really assess the added value. i can imagine it would be significant - qt linguist just ain't that great, and our review infrastructure completely sucks for translations. i cc'd the qt-l10n list to move the discussion over to a relevant place.
> fwiw I just learned that Transifex allows projects to define a CLA which > needs to be signed before joining a team. > > As an example (you need to sign in): > https://meego.transifex.net/projects/p/meego/cla/ > > As far as Reviewing is concerned, there is this feature in Transifex > itself. Each string can be reviewed from a privileged translator. Each > team can have any number of reviewers. > you still need to get this sorted with nokia legal, but it sounds like the tools to make a point are there. but irrespective of that, i think it would indeed make sense to make the translations lgpl-only (or use a CC license, as that's more appropriate, at least in theory) - there doesn't seem to be much of a business case for making them "proprietarily utilizable" (though we'd need some hard data from digia on that matter). it would also enable us to use a lot of qt translations from the kde community. one thing to consider is that some translators may not particularly like the idea of using a proprietary web app for their work, so gerrit would still need to be the authoritative repository with "normal" submissions enabled. i think that's doable. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
