[Debian-l10n-devel] Thoughts about DDTP (Was: Number of requests for DDTP)

[Michael Bramer]

On 08/01/2011 05:20 AM, Aron Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:00:46PM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote:
>> On 07/31/2011 09:57 AM, Aron Xu wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 02:05:34PM +0200, Martijn van O wrote:
>>>> On 29 July 2011 11:22, Nicolas François
>>>> <nicolas.francois at centraliens.net>   wrote:
>>>>> We need to understand more about your use case.
>>>>> What are you doing with the files received from DDTP?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you need all the descriptions?
>>>>> How often do you need to update the descriptions?
>>>>> How often do you need to receive translations contributed directly on
>>>>> DDTP?
>>>>> How often will you re-inject translations into DDTP?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are creating a PO file (or multiple PO files), could we generate
>>>>> this on the server and make it available to you and others?
>>>>
>>>> This brings up a point, there are a number of functions in the web
>>>> interface that are not well documented. For example, the web interface
>>>> can produce PO files directly, for example.
>>>
>>> Definitely I don't know the web interface can produce PO files, or I
>>> won't convert it by myself.
>>
>> Also the mail interface can/should import/export po files...
>> (I should check this)
>
> I'm very very curious about the options about the main interface, :-)

If you need something, ask...  We will help...

> For me I can't fetch translations which already have an owner, but DDTSS
> can. So there must be many things not being written down...

If you need it, we can add something like a 'force' option...

>>>> So, I'd also be interested in what all these emails are used for
>>>> (especially given the side-effects).
>>>
>>> It's being converted to PO format, upload to Pootle, translators do the
>>> work, convert back and send to the email interface, that's all.
>>>
>>> Honestly, our translators (zh_CN) said they don't like DDTSS's interface
>>> and it's complex work flow (i.e, need three people to work on one
>>> translation to let it in, by default settings of DDTSS, you already know
>>> the manpower is always very limited). In other translation projects
>>> which work on software interface, they usually have a translator<->
>>> reviewer interaction, that is anyone can submit a translation, and
>>> someone who is given the privilege can review it and decide.
>>
>> We can change the number of reviewer per language...
>
> Yes, I'm aware. But changing to fewer reviewers may cause damage to
> the quality in this submission model.

right

>>> DDTP is a huge project, and people get discouraged when they worked for
>>> some while and the progress hasn't been pushed forward 1%. Debian has
>>> thousands of packages, and even more descriptions await for translating.
>>> Why not we set several milestones, select some packages for different
>>> milestones. The selection could be classified to different target
>>> audience, for example, "Desktop", "Programming", "Server" or by whatever
>>> way that we can have further discussions. More over, we can have several
>>> milestones for every set of packages, sorted by popcon score.
>>> Translators and their teams can choose the sets and milestones they
>>> would like to work on first, and what later. This can even form a more
>>> efficient competition between teams, languages.
>>
>> ok, nice
>>
>> maybe this milestones:
>>   - priorities (required, important, standard, optional, extra)
>>   - sections (games, ...)
>>   - tasks from the packages-files
>>   - a custom package selection per language (defined from the lang
>> coordinator)
>>   - maybe a custom package selection per user, defined from himself
>>
>> If the user fetch a new description, he get one from his selected
>> milestone.
>>
>> (we had something like this in the past in the old mail interface...
>> yes the good old times :-) )
>>
>
> I'm okay with this strategy overall, but I think using the
> sections/categories defined by Debtags is better.

Hm, ok, this is also possible, but we have many tags?!

Is a Tag like 'implemented-in::lisp' important for translation?

Gruss
Grisu