Hello list,
This discussion was started in private; I'll continue it here.

On 01/10/2013 05:41 PM, John Dennis wrote:
On 01/10/2013 04:27 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 01/09/2013 03:55 PM, John Dennis wrote:

And I could work on improving the i18n/translations infrastructure,
starting by writing up a RFE+design.

Could you elaborate as to what you perceive as the current problems and
what this work would address.

Here are my notes:

- Use fake translations for tests

We already do (but perhaps not sufficiently).

I mean use it in *all* tests, to ensure all the right things are translated and weird characters are handled well.
See https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2012-October/msg00278.html

- Split up huge strings so the entire text doesn't have to be
retranslated each time something changes/is added

Good idea. But one question I have is should we be optimizing for our
programmers time or the translators time? The Transifex tool should make
available to translators similar existing translations (in fact it
might, I seem to recall some functionality in this area). Wouldn't it be
better to address this issue in Transifex where all projects would benefit?

Also the exact same functionality is needed to support release versions.
The strings between releases are often close but not identical. The
Transifex tool should make available a close match from a previous
version to the translator working on a new version (or visa versa). See
your issue below concerning versions.

IMHO this is a Transifex issue which needs to be solved there, not
something we should be investing precious IPA programmers time on. Plus
if it's solved in Transifex it's a *huge* win for *everyone*, not just IPA.

Huh? Splitting the strings provides additional information (paragraph/context boundaries) that Transifex can't get otherwise. From what I hear it's a pretty standard technique when working with gettext.

For typos, gettext has the "fuzzy" functionality that we explicitly turn off. I think we're on our own here.

- Keep a history/repo of the translations, since Transifex only stores
the latest version

We already do keep a history, it's in git.

It's not updated often enough. If I mess something up before a release and Transifex gets wiped, or if a rogue translator deletes some translations, the work is gone.

- Update the source strings on Transifex more often (ideally as soon as
patches are pushed)

Yes, great idea, this would be really useful and is necessary.

- Break Git dependencies: make it possible generate the POT in an
unpacked tarball

Are you talking about the fact our scripts invoke git to determine what
files to process? If so then yes, this would be a good dependency to get
rid of. However it does mean we somehow have to maintain a manifest list
of some sort somewhere.

A directory listing is fine IMO. We use it for more critical things, like loading plugins, without any trouble. Also, when run in a Git repo the Makefile can compare the file list with what Git says and warn accordingly.

- Figure out how to best share messages across versions (2.x vs. 3.x) so
they only have to be translated once

There is a crying need for this, but isn't this a Transifex issue? Why
would we solving this in IPA? What about SSSD and every other project,
they all have identical issues. As far as I can tell Transifex has never
addressed this issue sufficiently (see above) and the onus is on them to
do so.

I don't think waiting for Transifex will solve the problem.

- Clean up checked-in PO files even more, for nicer diffs

A nice feature, but I'm wondering to extent we're currently suffering
because of this. It's rare that we have to compare PO files. Plus diff
is not well suited for comparing PO's because PO files with equivalent
data can be formatted differently. That's why I wrote some tools to read
PO files, normalize the contents and then do a comparison. Anyway my top
level question is is this something we really need at this point?

You're right that files have to be normalized to diff well.That's actually the point here :) Anyway I'm just thinking of sorting the PO alphabetically - an extra option to msgattrib should do it.

- Automate & document the process so any dev can do it

Excellent goal, we're not too far from it now, but of all the things on
the list this is the most important.

--
Petr³

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to