On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:15:25PM +0100, Sebastian Heinlein wrote: > It is the job of the corresponding translation team to push their > changes upstream or the job of upstream to review and import them. I > think that every Debian translation team knows of Rosetta. But I am not > sure if all of them use Rosetta as a resource. I am aware of the quality > argument. That's certainly a flawed assumption. If you are providing translators an amicable interface to avoid handling technical details you cannot expect them to push things on to upstream. Try asking Rosetta's translation teams if they know what "upstream" is for the packages they translate. Likewise, upstream does not have to have any notion at all that Rosetta exists. It should be somebody else's job to push stuff back upstream or otherwise you can find the un-funny situation in which somebody translates (for Ubuntu) an application using Rosetta and somebody else translates the same application but provides it upstream. When the application gets updated with upstream sources either there is an inconsistency or all the changes from one of the translators goes through the drain. If translation teams were global (i.e. there would be a single translation team per language for projects) Rosetta could be viable. Currently, however, translation teams are created *around* projects. I.e. Debian has its own translation team, so does KDE, so does GNOME, so does the FSF and so does (it seems) Ubuntu. Any upstream can eventually get a "translation team" created around it (such is the case, for example, for popular projects like Gaim). The problem I see is this: the GNOME and KDE translation teams work on their respective projects and so do the FSF translation team. The Debian translation teams only works with Debian-related stuff (i.e. d-i, website, documents, po-debconf and PO of Debian-specific packages), and in some situations (when a translator spots a bug in a non-specific translation) forward the issue back to the other projects be it the teams at GNOME, KDE, the FSF or the upstream project itself. Sometimes this is done by the translators (directly contacting the Last-Translator) and sometimes (when the translators do not have a clue) it's the maintainer's job to forward that information (typically received in the BTS) However, the Ubuntu translation teams work actually overlap with *all* of those projects. With no communication back to those projects the idea is fundamentally flawed. And expecting translators (or upstream) to do the communication is something that is not evident (I actually have seen no notice in Rosetta to this regard when I first used it to see what it did). > But it would be the best if there would be some communication between > both teams. E.g. the German KDE and GNOME translators have got a > representative in our German Ubuntu translators team and vice versa. So are you suggesting that the language coordinators in Debian have to join the language teams in Rosetta or, at the very least, act as a bridge between translators there and translators in Debian? That sounds really strange to me, it's like asking upstream maintainers in Debian to subscribe to the BTS or else they will not get any notifications of the bugs reported here. Is that really how you think it should work? Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature