incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Pootle (was Re: About the Former Native Language projects)
Date Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:38:49 GMT
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Dwayne Bailey <> wrote:
> On 2011-12-16 07:07, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 2011, at 7:38 AM, Dwayne Bailey wrote:
>>> On 2011-12-13 23:49, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Ross Gardler []
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 12:39 AM
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Subject: Re: Pootle (was Re: About the Former Native Language projects)
>>>>> On 13 December 2011 14:27, Dwayne Bailey<>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>  From the look of it Apache might be using this server for more
>>>>>> just OOo which I love even more.
>>>>> The Subversion project has been using Pootle for some time. They
>>>>> maintained their own instance in a VM. When AOO arrived the
>>>>> infrastructure
>>>>> team decided it would make sense to provide a foundation wide server.
>>>>> It has only just gone online, but it other projects may pick it up over
>>>> time.
>>>>>> I'm not sure where to ask this but does Apache, or one of the
>>>>>> corporate backers, want to engage with Translate to setup and maintain
>>>>>> this server?
>>>>> Here is the right place to ask that question. The AOO PPMC needs to
>>>>> figure
>>>>> out, with infrastructure, how to configure and use this server.
>>>>> Now we know you are around we know where to look for further help.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>> We do not have any folks outside of the ASF on our servers. If any of
>>>> the
>>>> translate folks are committers then fine we can see what we can do
>>>> there,
>>>> though I do feel it has been configured with care and is appropriate for
>>>> our
>>>> needs.
>>>> As a translate expert please share your thoughts on what you feel needs
>>>> doing
>>>> to help improve the Pootle Server.
>>> There are other people on our team better qualified for that kind of
>>> review.  But it needs access to the server to evaluate. And no I doubt any
>>> of us are commiters.
>> I'm sure there will be a way that you can contribute.
>>>> In fact I Do have a question for you, is it possible to get the current
>>>> OOo
>>>> translations
>>>> migrated over into this instance or would it be too much work ? (and
>>>> without
>>>> affecting the other projects or our configuration.)
>>> Not sure I understand what you mean. If you mean pulled off the old
>>> server and onto the new I don't know if that server even exists, we don't
>>> have access to it anymore.
>>> One change I would recommend is to have PO files stored in SVN and make
>>> creation of SDF files a build time event.
>>> My biggest concern as a localiser would be the sharing of translation
>>> resources between LibO and AOO.
>> I can only guess, please explain your concerns.
> Small teams, small number of people wanting to make sure that OOo in
> whatever form is localised.  The strings are almost 100% the same, at the
> moment, between AOO and LibO.  So how to share resource between the two.
> I don't want to waste people time translating the same thing twice. I also
> want to make sure that the translations are consistent no matter where it
> was translated, so sharing for consistency is important to me.
> So the one issue is logistics of doing this, the other is the licensing
> concern.

On the license side, making the translations available under the
Apache 2.0 license will allow both AOO and LO to use the translations.

Would there be any value to sharing the "translation memory" data
independently of the underlying translations?  Would that give any

I don't think that we can avoid having a divergence in translation
strings.  New features added to LO will differ from new features added
to AOO.  But the underlying terms we use to describe the UI and the
basic application features will remain the same.  Terms like "pages",
'sections", "sheets" and 'fonts" etc., are not going to change.  So in
that case, would a shared translation memory database help?

Another other approach would be to actually have shared translation
strings, but adopt a naming convention to distinguish LO-specific
strings from AOO-specific strings, such as using the prefix LO_ or
AOO_.   The common strings would remain the same, making it easier for
a new language translation to target both apps at once.


>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>>> And another question I asked on IRC the other day but no -one seemed to
>>>> know,
>>>> can there be support for groups - would be much easier to integrate
>>>> better
>>>> with
>>>> LDAP if there were support for groups.
>>>> (Feel free to take that last question off list or ask me to file an
>>>> issue as
>>>> appropriate.)
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Gav...
>>>>> Ross
>>> --
>>> regards
>>> Dwayne
> --
> regards
> Dwayne

View raw message