From: PCMan <pcm...@gm...> - 2010-12-19 07:27:15
|
Hello, I got sick in the past weeks so I didn't touch LXDE things recently. Now I felt better, and took some time to look at the problems we have on transifex.net. Previously I thought that maybe during the upgrading some configurations are missing. So fixing them is no big deal, but I was complete wrong. The seamless integration with git is not broken or hidden. It's removed deliberately. It's replaced by something complicated and after RTFM for 30 minutes I still don't know how to use it. The best features we loved are all removed and replaced by something that's really hard to use. Transifex.net has helped us a lot in the past and made our translation process easy to maintain. It's really a pity to see this design decision and it no longer works the way we want. To be honest, if the features we want most is removed, then what's the point in using this tool? Should we continue using it? If the answer is yes, anyone knows how to fix it? If the answer is no, let's all move to Pootle. Please leave your comments. Thanks a lot. |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-12-19 11:00:33
|
> It's replaced by something complicated and after RTFM for 30 minutes I > still don't know how to use it. I was planning to this during the week but was too swamped at work to get to this in the evening. Sounds indeed as stupid as I thought then. > To be honest, if the features we want most is removed, then what's the > point in using this tool? > Should we continue using it? if it can be solved in a reasonable fashion I think we should stay, people like the workflow in Tx (or did they change that too? =)) and disrupting translators is not anything I am a fan of. > If the answer is yes, anyone knows how to fix it? I haven't been able yet. Schedule looks promising. -- /brother http://martin.bagge.nu Bruce Schneier once found three distinct natural number divisors of a prime number. |
From: Christoph W. <chr...@go...> - 2010-12-19 12:42:38
|
Am Sonntag, den 19.12.2010, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Martin Bagge / brother: > > If the answer is yes, anyone knows how to fix it? > > I haven't been able yet. Schedule looks promising. What schedule? Regards, Christoph |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-12-19 12:46:26
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 19.12.2010, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Martin Bagge / brother: > >>> If the answer is yes, anyone knows how to fix it? >> >> I haven't been able yet. Schedule looks promising. > > What schedule? My weekly schedule of things to do. I can share a .ics file of that for those who want to see more closely. -- /brother http://martin.bagge.nu Bruce Schneier doesn't have a chin under his beard -- just more ciphertext. |
From: Christoph W. <chr...@go...> - 2010-12-19 12:51:16
|
Am Sonntag, den 19.12.2010, 13:46 +0100 schrieb Martin Bagge / brother: > On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, den 19.12.2010, 11:40 +0100 schrieb Martin Bagge / brother: > > > >>> If the answer is yes, anyone knows how to fix it? > >> > >> I haven't been able yet. Schedule looks promising. > > > > What schedule? > > My weekly schedule of things to do. Ah, I thought that transifex had published a schedule for adding some missing features back. Regards, Christoph |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-12-19 12:59:36
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Ah, I thought that transifex had published a schedule for adding some > missing features back. That would be neat but no not as far as I know, should we hope for miracles? -- /brother http://martin.bagge.nu Bruce Schneier tapdances in Morse Code. |
From: Yorvyk <yor...@go...> - 2010-12-19 20:12:15
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 13:59:27 +0100 (CET) Martin Bagge / brother <br...@bs...> wrote: > On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > Ah, I thought that transifex had published a schedule for adding some > > missing features back. > > That would be neat but no not as far as I know, should we hope for > miracles? > I do hope the problems can solved as transifex is a nice simple tool to use. The Mageia (Mandriva fork) people were discussing[1] using Transifex and this problem. might it be worth contacting them so both projects can give the transifex people a kick in the right direction. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/mag...@ma.../msg00394.html -- Steve Cook (Yorvyk) http://lubuntu.net |
From: Christoph W. <chr...@go...> - 2010-12-19 21:16:30
|
Am Sonntag, den 19.12.2010, 20:10 +0000 schrieb Yorvyk: > I do hope the problems can solved as transifex is a nice simple tool to use. Unfortunately it has lost it's killer feature. > The Mageia (Mandriva fork) people were discussing[1] using Transifex > and this problem. might it be worth contacting them so both projects > can give the transifex people a kick in the right direction. > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/mag...@ma.../msg00394.html AFAICS their situation is a little different: They are thinking about to switch to transifex while we are already using it. And they are considering the switch because they think they can still work online. This will only work if they install transifex 0.9 on their own server but if they use transifex 1.0 from transifex.net, it's no longer possible. Somebody also claimed that with direct commits to SVN there is no longer quality control. This is not correct. Even when you use transifex to commit to the SCM, you can do reviews in transifex before you commit. Somebody should contact them and tell them their discussion is based on false/outdated assumptions. I am willing to answer questions, but I'm not going to subscribe to their mailing lists to join the discussion. Regards, Christoph |
From: Yorvyk <yor...@go...> - 2010-12-21 10:41:38
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 22:16:17 +0100 Christoph Wickert <chr...@go...> wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 19.12.2010, 20:10 +0000 schrieb Yorvyk: > > I do hope the problems can solved as transifex is a nice simple tool to use. > > Unfortunately it has lost it's killer feature. > > > The Mageia (Mandriva fork) people were discussing[1] using Transifex > > and this problem. might it be worth contacting them so both projects > > can give the transifex people a kick in the right direction. > > > > [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/mag...@ma.../msg00394.html > > AFAICS their situation is a little different: They are thinking about to > switch to transifex while we are already using it. And they are > considering the switch because they think they can still work online. > This will only work if they install transifex 0.9 on their own server > but if they use transifex 1.0 from transifex.net, it's no longer > possible. > > Somebody also claimed that with direct commits to SVN there is no longer > quality control. This is not correct. Even when you use transifex to > commit to the SCM, you can do reviews in transifex before you commit. > > Somebody should contact them and tell them their discussion is based on > false/outdated assumptions. I am willing to answer questions, but I'm > not going to subscribe to their mailing lists to join the discussion. > > Regards, > Christoph > I only understand the basics of what happens once I have translated something, I leave that magic to others :) That leaves the question, should I (or anybody else) continue to use Transifex or should I start to use (and learn) Pootle. -- Steve Cook (Yorvyk) http://lubuntu.net |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-12-21 11:47:13
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2010-12-21 11:41, Yorvyk wrote: > That leaves the question, should I (or anybody else) continue to use Transifex or should I start to use (and learn) Pootle. For the time being we can not guarantee that changes done in Transifex will ever make it to the upstream repositories. Until further notice: Do not use Transifex.net to translate LXDE. I will accept and apply regular patches via e-mail (br...@bs...) for those wishing not to switch to Pootle. This is not however supported during a lengthy time. Probably as a maximum to the middle of January 2011. There is no need to stress a switch to Pootle at this time. We have not made a final decision on the usage of Transifex in the future, it might survive - and ofc it might not. We will let you know as soon as possible. (I'll put this on the blog too) - -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk0Qk7gACgkQRnDBymnxg5qqZgCeJqyeY5yuqqYfHVJHvmzRO5yK yhcAoNlWOyzvABawuzOyBu3hUbph6V53 =qYAk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Yorvyk <yor...@go...> - 2011-02-15 14:14:05
|
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:47:04 +0100 Martin Bagge / brother <br...@bs...> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2010-12-21 11:41, Yorvyk wrote: > > That leaves the question, should I (or anybody else) continue to use Transifex or should I start to use (and learn) Pootle. > > For the time being we can not guarantee that changes done in Transifex > will ever make it to the upstream repositories. > > Until further notice: Do not use Transifex.net to translate LXDE. > > I will accept and apply regular patches via e-mail (br...@bs...) > for those wishing not to switch to Pootle. This is not however supported > during a lengthy time. Probably as a maximum to the middle of January 2011. > > There is no need to stress a switch to Pootle at this time. We have not > made a final decision on the usage of Transifex in the future, it might > survive - and ofc it might not. We will let you know as soon as possible. > What's the state of play with Transifex, are we going to continue to use it or do we switch to Pootle? -- Steve Cook (Yorvyk) http://lubuntu.net |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2011-02-15 14:40:18
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2011-02-15 15:13, Yorvyk wrote: > What's the state of play with Transifex, are we going to continue to use it or do we switch to Pootle? Tx can not be used for the time being. Pootle works. For PCManFM and libfm patches in the bug tracker or by e-mail to me is ok. (or pootle ofc) - -- brother http://sis.bthstudent.se -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJNWpBIAAoJEJbdSEaj0jV7dK4H/0Q+RNWnVslD9g2ee/liiysC x0P0TabcT4aTDYaIJDnh3q4Ton/K80LmpMGIRit7e1JfUEwg0U1q47eabVlGWUUy pfKBkOvG1tlFksXqrxbHbZ0YmV2ibN/m0QNuEJ1KvUhTMXHeUthMrVhVbvHjzpXx MiUCqEpljL1QXSvEe1xCJ1L87NhaQZ7EkvlCGoG83+y3A5Bhvd/g0aLQFazRbxXd 8TtwNQgywfhgQv7bVvYeHt/fGRSwVI5uTknNudSKX+0a1oBi/F0FgocNAac1AkP8 KgFWzIuuwKC+aCxcDYktfcdV/9lBHaU4bVZeAlwcJyaH9com/nfqg3EM4vykmzA= =9fYs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Sergio C. <sec...@gm...> - 2010-12-19 11:26:27
|
I'm not qualified to talk about the administrative aspects of the Transifex change. But IF these are solved (like getting submissions directly to the git repo as before), Transifex is a good place to translate. They certainly improved the translation tool and have interesting features like being able to clone one language (like if I'm going to start a pt_BR translation and there's already a pt one made I can start by cloning it and just modify it). Nothing indispensable per se as Pootle is just fine too. Another aspect that may be considered by the administrators is if it's an advantage to have two translation services in a working state so one can be a backup for the other or if it's just extra work. On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Martin Bagge / brother <br...@bs...> wrote: >> It's replaced by something complicated and after RTFM for 30 minutes I >> still don't know how to use it. > > I was planning to this during the week but was too swamped at work to get > to this in the evening. > Sounds indeed as stupid as I thought then. > >> To be honest, if the features we want most is removed, then what's the >> point in using this tool? >> Should we continue using it? > > if it can be solved in a reasonable fashion I think we should stay, people > like the workflow in Tx (or did they change that too? =)) and disrupting > translators is not anything I am a fan of. > >> If the answer is yes, anyone knows how to fix it? > > I haven't been able yet. Schedule looks promising. > > -- > /brother > http://martin.bagge.nu > Bruce Schneier once found three distinct natural number divisors of a prime number. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Lotusphere 2011 > Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how > to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment > to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d > _______________________________________________ > Lxde-i18n mailing list > Lxd...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxde-i18n > |
From: Martin B. / b. <br...@bs...> - 2010-12-19 11:37:19
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Sergio Cipolla wrote: > I'm not qualified to talk about the administrative aspects of the > Transifex change. not me either =) > Another aspect that may be considered by the administrators is if it's > an advantage to have two translation services in a working state so > one can be a backup for the other or if it's just extra work. it hasn't really been a burden for almost a year. I think I have done something like 10 manual interventions between Tx and Pootle and upstream source. Most of these has originated from upstream not Tx or Pootle. -- /brother http://martin.bagge.nu Bruce Schneier is the ideal man. Alice loves him; Bob fears him; Charlie wants to be him. |