[Qt-l10n] [Development] Using Transifex for handling Qt localization?

Wed May 23 09:13:02 CEST 2012

I do not think Linguist does not need a more collaboration features. This
is just one what I'd like to see, even if it means Linguist needs some
additional files where it can be stored.

In other hand:

> Linguist just can't handle the "distributed" part of the work, which
> is fine. It shouldn't,
> it's not part of the problem domain of translating strings. I'm not
saying Linguist couldn't
> be improved in some ways, I'm saying Linguist is not to blame here.

I did not blamed Linguist but I think Linguist is not just an editor what
handles special file formats. Currently linguist has a basic implementation
of the translation memory (even if phrasebooks are lack a lot of feature of
it), suggestions and a lot of more things. I think Linguist is a
translation tool like other stuffs (for example Transifex). Or, I do not
want to make a border between Linguist and Transifex.

However, I do not like Transifex too. My first problem is Transifex has a
lot of problems, for example importing translation files. I tried to do
that and I got a less than 50% translated project from a fully translated
one. I think it is very bad result. My second problem is Transifex is an
online tool. Even if I think cloud is cool, I do not think we need move
everything to cloud. For example, I like translate Qt when I do not have
internet connection too, and commit my changes to a Git repo. Transifex
cannot work without an internet connection, and usage of transifex-client
is more complicated than Git or SVN.

But you can say I am a conservative guy.

Regards,
--
Garami Gábor
E-mail: gabor.garami at hron.me
Tel: +36 20 235 9621
MSN: hrgy at vipmail.hu
Skype: hron84

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Diego Schulz <dschulz at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Gábor Garami <hrgyster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just my two cent:
> >
> > First, I am a translation leader of Hungarian language, and as I
> experience,
> > Linguist is quite enough for translating Qt. Even if Linguist can be
> better,
> > translating Qt is not a very special thing (except Designer and Creator),
> > there are some general strings and there is a lot of examples how to
> > translate them.
> >
> > In other hand, I do not know any translation service (including
> Transifex)
> > what can tell you how the string placed what you translating. Linguist
> can
> > show you the complete dialog where the translation will being placed and
> > this help is not replaceable.
> >
> > My second thought is if Qt has a translation software and it is not found
> > enough to translate the Qt itself, then we do something very wrong. If
> > things are really needed to translate Qt, then we need to implement them
> in
> > Linguist, because this is our dedicated and customizable translation
> tool.
> >
> > Btw, I cannot imagine why Nokia (and previously Trolltech) do not foucus
> to
> > Linguist to improve it and make it as a best translation software (I
> used it
> > in a lot of translation project, in some cases I converted external
> sources
> > to TS just for use Linguist, so I little lack an objectivity). As I see
> > Linguist is a quite good translator software but it can be more better
> > (External API integration in suggestions, more intelligent translation
> > memory), and I would like if we improve it instead of giving up a lot of
> > work what invented into this utility.
> >
> > This is my private opinion, maybe I missed some points.
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm just a hobbyist programmer willing to help with the Spanish translation
> of Qt and Qt Creator. Some years ago I translated Qt Creator, when it was
> in its infancy. It was a fun experience wich forced me to learn a few
> interesting things. Since then I love Git and Linguist.
>
> There's nothing wrong with Linguist, really. You know it can handle
> translating
> humongous projects. Certainly it can very well be used to translate
> Qt, if you're going to
> do it alone. So this sentence you wrote is a fallacy and an exaggeration:
>
> > "...if Qt has a translation software and it is not found
> > enough to translate the Qt itself, then we do something very wrong."
>
> Linguist just can't handle the "distributed" part of the work, which
> is fine. It shouldn't,
> it's not part of the problem domain of translating strings. I'm not
> saying Linguist couldn't
> be improved in some ways, I'm saying Linguist is not to blame here.
>
> Qt and Qt Creator are a very large projects. Due to the amount of work
> it implies, they
> can't be realistically translated by a lone ranger using Linguist.
> Once there's at least
> two people working on this task, some kind of coordination is needed in
> order to
> optimize the workflow. Pushing changes and pulling back others changes
> from a Git
> repository is certainly possible, but there are a few difficulties with
> this.
>
> First, the translator must know how to use Git, not just Linguist.
> Don't underestimate this.
> Then, as more people is involved in a translation team, more
> coordination is needed.
> Asking peers for opinions on the wording of a simple sentence requires
> a bunch of emails
> and a lot of precious time and effort. And lastly, the less people
> involved in a team,
> the poorer the translation is (this is a mathematical axiom).
>
> With Transifex a lot of the impedance just vanishes and more people
> can contribute
> in a team. Feedback is instantaneous.
>
> As an example, I've followed closely the translation of Reddit.com. As
> soon as they
> announced the availability of the message files in a Git repository, I
> went to clone
> and translated some of it. Mine was probably one of the first merge
> requests and
> there were many stalled in a few days. They were unable to handle all
> the work and
> after some time they gave up and moved to Transifex instead, which was
> a success.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Regards,
>
> diego
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Gabor Garami
> > hrgyster at gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen
> > <oswald.buddenhagen at nokia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:55:41PM -0700, ext Quim Gil wrote:
> >> > - How valuable is to have an efficient tool for handling translations
> >> > between teams - as opposed to whatever process we have now? Are we
> happy
> >> > with the current system? Do we believe we would improve significantly
> >> > with a tool like Transifex?
> >> >
> >> not being a translator myself (except to help out with strings i have
> >> some relation to as the developer), i cannot really assess the added
> >> value. i can imagine it would be significant - qt linguist just ain't
> >> that great, and our review infrastructure completely sucks for
> >> translations.
> >> i cc'd the qt-l10n list to move the discussion over to a relevant place.
> >>
> >> > fwiw I just learned that Transifex allows projects to define a CLA
> which
> >> > needs to be signed before joining a team.
> >> >
> >> > As an example (you need to sign in):
> >> >   https://meego.transifex.net/projects/p/meego/cla/
> >> >
> >> > As far as Reviewing is concerned, there is this feature in Transifex
> >> > itself. Each string can be reviewed from a privileged translator. Each
> >> > team can have any number of reviewers.
> >> >
> >> you still need to get this sorted with nokia legal, but it sounds like
> >> the tools to make a point are there.
> >>
> >> but irrespective of that, i think it would indeed make sense to make the
> >> translations lgpl-only (or use a CC license, as that's more appropriate,
> >> at least in theory) - there doesn't seem to be much of a business case
> >> for making them "proprietarily utilizable" (though we'd need some hard
> >> data from digia on that matter). it would also enable us to use a lot of
> >> qt translations from the kde community.
> >>
> >> one thing to consider is that some translators may not particularly like
> >> the idea of using a proprietary web app for their work, so gerrit would
> >> still need to be the authoritative repository with "normal" submissions
> >> enabled. i think that's doable.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Qt-l10n mailing list
> >> Qt-l10n at qt.nokia.com
> >> http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-l10n
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qt-l10n mailing list
> > Qt-l10n at qt.nokia.com
> > http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-l10n
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-l10n mailing list
> Qt-l10n at qt.nokia.com
> http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-l10n
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/localization/attachments/20120523/644a96b0/attachment.html>