subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Julian Foad <>
Subject Re: translations
Date Sun, 05 Feb 2017 14:56:31 GMT
Stefan Kueng wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Stefan Kueng wrote on Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 17:13:06 +0100:
>>> I remember there was a discussion about two years ago about using a web
>>> based translation tool for Subversion (e.g.
>>> but that discussion got to no real decision.
>>> For TSVN we use transifex ( which is free for
>>> open source projects. Works quite well - it updates the new strings
>>> automatically from our repository pot file.
>> ASF has a Pootle instance:
>>> Even if Subversion does not move to use such a web based tool: how about
>>> providing the source pot file in the repository which should be updated
>>> frequently so translators can use that file without having to install and
>>> parse the whole svn source?
> So why not at least have a developer do that once every week and then
> the translators would only have to checkout/update the subversion/po dir
> and start translating from there.

Speaking without knowledge of exactly what's required, and also not 
volunteering myself to do it, but just as a developer wanting to see 
this task get done and therefore wanting to make life easier for the 
volunteers who do it...

This sounds like a no-brainer to me. Of course we would want to do that. 
So let's get this moving by doing this easy step first -- just checking 
in the .pot -- right now, and then improve:

1. check it in now, manually, and try to remember to update it 
sometimes, manually;

2. automate the updating of it (in a daily builder?)

3. use Pootle or whatever (discuss how, after 1. is done)

Checking in the .pot sounds like a perfectly good exception to the 
general rule "don't check in generated code".

Previously I said let's write to the existing translators to involve 
them with any decision to move to a system like Pootle. I still think we 
should. But that's not relevant for 1. and 2.

Any objections or down-sides that I've missed?

- Julian

View raw message