(Summarizing a conversation from IRC) ezra-s (Daniel Ferradal) is beginning to work on our Spanish docs translation. This led to discussion of a number of points surrounding translations:
* There are some (numerous?) .es files in 2.4 that are not in trunk. These need to be identified, and where appropriate, copied/moved into trunk, so that they are not lost in the future. Translation work should (usually) happen in trunk first, and then be (intelligently - of course some stuff is trunk-only) copied to 2.4 and possibly (?) 2.2. We have apparently done a poor job of communicating and policing this, and need to update our translation docs accordingly. The usual catchphrase is, Upstream First. * We have translations that are grossly out of date. We should drop them. It remains only to define what "tool old" means? If a translation hasn't been touched since 2.4.0, I would recommend dropping it. Discussion? * It also occurs to me that we should make specific recommendations of which docs should be translated first. For example, I think that the "Getting Started" doc, and the "HowTo" docs, would be good places to start, while the module docs, being more about technical detail and having a less conversational style, would come later. * All of this hinges on actually getting translators. It *seems* that this used to be easier, but lately we have really stunk at attracting new translators. I think that this might be because our review process is so rigorous, and it's hard to find reviewers. But for certain languages (Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, Russian) it would seem that we have an enormous pool of users to draw from. Perhaps time to do some recruiting on users@? I believe we should first address the above items, though, so that they're coming into a well-documented encouraging environment, rather than picking up a lot of abandoned partially translated things. Indeed, it might be good to go ahead and drop entire languages from trunk, so that a new translator has a clean slate to work with. I know I find that less frustrating, myself. Please discuss, so I'm not just talking to myself. :-) -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
