On 24/11/13 03:09, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On 11/17/2013 01:04 AM, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> On 11/07/2013 02:21 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>> Anyone interested in finding out what would be needed to make our >>> l10n compatible with Transifex, without losing the possibility of >>> anonymous contributions of translations? >> I've made an account for Freenet, [0] and can add people want to be >> maintainers or members. I'd like to go over the English strings for >> sanity before requesting translations, but the time frame on that may >> be impractical. > Turns out deepy [0] had already set one up. We're now both maintainers > on the single remaining project. [1] I've set up all the existing > translations as well. > > [0] https://www.transifex.com/accounts/profile/deepy/ > [1] https://www.transifex.com/projects/p/freenet/ Do you have a system/process/script/workflow/vague idea to deal with contributions coming in both via this service and anonymously? More automation might make things easier for centralised translations but harder for anonymous translations, if it's not thought through properly. Anonymous translations submitted over FMS are quite common in my experience.
Just want to know that you've thought about this...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
