sebastian at sugarlabs.org
Tue Apr 19 18:28:01 EDT 2011
First of all let me reaffirm that I share your notion of the importance
of i18n for this project and greatly value the contribution you have
done. I think I was too fast in +1'ing the proposal without all the
information you have kindly shared. So -1 on "dropping" pootle! :-P
There remains an issue as I said that we have very poor connection
thrughout deployments and this makes working with pootle as the only
option difficult. In Peru alone there are 61 native languages and I
think it is vital to try to support them. Of course an "unhosted"
workflow is only part of the story for this.
I would love to work on this with you when we have the resources for
making another go at native languages.
El 19/04/11 16:33, Chris Leonard escribió:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Bernie Innocenti
> <bernie at sugarlabs.org <mailto:bernie at sugarlabs.org>> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:54 -0500, Rafael Ortiz wrote:
> > Although this off-line workflow would save us a lot of headaches,
> > imo is a work overhead both for translators and activity devs, we
> > must make the work needed to do activities on sugar, the most
> > pleasant one.
> Perhaps it's because I'm a geek, but if I were translateing Sugar to
> Italian I'd appreciate using my favorite text editor, without any
> network delay and with the ability to test the new strings immediately
> in Sugar.
> I can see how humans may prefer a simple web interface over a text
> editor, but how do they test their work when they work in Pootle?
> Let me guess it: they don't test at all! :-)
> This would also explain why so many translations look awkward or
> out of
> To check if Pootle is really necessary, I'd like to see the list
> of the
> 10 most active translators and see how many of them wouldn't be
> able to
> work directly with the po file.
> Please forgive me if my rhetoric seems impassioned and for the length
> of my reply, but I do feel quite strongly about this issue. I will
> try to distinguish my logical and verifiable arguments from those that
> come from my gut.
> The top five submitters are listed at the bottom of the Pootle home page:
> cjl 25532
> readmanr 6055 (mostly from en_GB, hardly counts as L10n)
> aputsiaq 3402 (a heroic effort in lang-da)
> subbu 2665 (lang-kn, mostly an eToys localizer)
> rubina 2545 (another heroic effort in lang-hy at special
> request of OLPC)
> Key Pootle functions:
> Being able to easily access statistics like those above is just one of
> many functions that Pootle performs above and beyond holding POT
> files. These stats are broken down by language and project and serve
> as my primary means of identifying potential language admins.
> Pootle is absolutely essential to my own work as a L10n community
> organizer. The translation memory function of the Terminology project
> is important for consistency and productivity, the built-in pofilter
> review tab is critical for enabling quality control processes.
> Suggestions are only possible in the context of a Pootle server, they
> are not contained within the PO file format itself, which only has
> "fuzzy" flagging. No such advantages are available in an unhosted
> Disadvantages of unhosted localisation workflows:
> There are a few projects that use a CVS/repo for POT files and a
> mailing list for submissions. Their localizations are typically in
> fewer languages than web-hosted localization workflows (Pootle,
> Transifex, Damned Lies) and also suffer from significant quality issues.
> I've compiled a good number of links to upstream projects (separating
> hosted from unhosted L10n workflows) on this page:
> I've also looked over the results of these unhosted efforts quite
> closely. Consider these statistics for Spanish (the most commonly
> localized second language and one quite important to Sugar Labs /
> OLPC) on a number of well-known packages that use a repo/mailing list
> L10n workflow. On hosted solutions lang-es is typically 99-100% complete.
> Abiword is only about 90% complete in Spanish.
> Inkscape is a little over 80% translated in Spanish.
> Gnash is about 25% complete in Spanish and it's translation quality is
> frankly pathetic.
> Community Impact:
> A far less radical shift (Fedora going from an internally hosted
> Transifex instance to an externally hosted Transifex instance) caused
> L10n community unrest in Feb/Mar of this year as it was done without
> adequate community consultation and was seen as a breach of trust
> between the Infrastructure Team and the Localization Team. We cannot
> come to any conclusion without adequate consultation with the L10n
> community itself.
> It should also be considered that "dropping" Pootle could be seen as
> breaking faith with the eToys community and in my opinion would be a
> betrayal of our localization community. No such decision can be taken
> on this private systems list, it would require input from the
> localizers and should be taken to the Oversight Board. I would see a
> conversion to an unhosted L10n workflow as a disastrous failure on the
> part of Sugar Labs to support it's mission and it would almost
> certainly cause me to reconsider whether the time and effort I have
> contributed over the past several years to that mission was valued
> highly enough for it to be worth continuing my involvement with the
> There are other hosted L10n workflow tools that could be investigated,
> but they will all come with their own unique problems. I am not
> unsympathetic to the maintenance costs of Pootle, but I do not think
> we have reasonably exhausted the appropriate avenues to stabilize our
> instance, nor am I aware of it being an inordinate maintenance burden
> compared to the mission-critical function(s) it provides. I have not
> seen any posts on the upstream Pootle list documenting the issues
> (which I don't fully understand) or asking for assistance. They are
> fairly responsive to request for help. I filed a ticket requesting
> an enhancement (not even a bug) in Virtaal and it was rolled out in
> trunk in three weeks.
> In essence, what you are suggesting in going to an unhosted L10n
> workflow is the equivalent of saying, we will not maintain a wiki, but
> we will give you an FTP site. It is my opinion that we do not have
> the strength or depth in our cadre of language admins to make this
> switch succeed in the long run, nor do we have the resources t odo a
> thorough job of assessing and migrating to a different hosted L10n
> workflow solution, even if one were identified that accomplished as
> much as Pootle does.
> Respectfully Yours,
> Systems mailing list
> Systems at lists.sugarlabs.org
Oversight Board Member
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Systems