There's been some discussion around how to handle the conflicts between
upstream and downstream translations. I'd like to propose a rather different
solution to the ones talked about so far.
Problem
We're struggling to collaborate across two different systems. I'm not a
translator, but reading into the threads on foreman-dev, it seems that
translator efforts are either being overwritten (usually when a downstream
translation is merged back upstream), or being ignored (e.g. when we choose not
to use a downstream translation because of merge issues). Or have I missed the
point?
In addition, Transifex is not an open source tool, although it is
free-as-in-beer for open source projects. For an ideal scenario, we should look
for an open source platform to use.
Proposal
Move translations to Zanata. Red Hat host a public Zanata instance[1]
which could
be used by both upstream and downstream translators, thus taking advantage of
translation memory between both groups.
Openstack encountered the same issue with Transifex last year [2]. Anecdotally,
their translators prefer the Zanata interface to the Transifex one anyway,
which would be a bonus if true for us.
Open questions
I'm not a translator, so some of the details on how we currently handle
translations are unfamiliar to me. We may need to do some work around the
integration tooling for GitHub, but I have heard that Openstack have a two-way
sync; thus, new source changes can be pulled into Zanata for use by the
translators, and CI processes can pull new translations and send automatic
review requests in their Gerrit. We can almost certainly do similar. I
don't know
what other features we need to handle, input welcome.
Next steps
I'm happy to send out a quick message and one-question survery on Transifex to
our translators, but I wanted to be sure it was a good plan before doing so. If
we can agree here, I'll happy take this forward to them.
> Hi all,
>
> There's been some discussion around how to handle the conflicts between
> upstream and downstream translations. I'd like to propose a rather different
> solution to the ones talked about so far.
>
> # Problem
>
> We're struggling to collaborate across two different systems. I'm not a
> translator, but reading into the threads on foreman-dev, it seems that
> translator efforts are either being overwritten (usually when a downstream
> translation is merged back upstream), or being ignored (e.g. when we choose not
> to use a downstream translation because of merge issues). Or have I missed the
> point?
That is a fair enough summary.
>
> In addition, Transifex is not an open source tool, although it is
> free-as-in-beer for open source projects. For an ideal scenario, we should look
> for an open source platform to use.
>
> # Proposal
>
> Move translations to Zanata. Red Hat host a public Zanata instance[1]
> which could
> be used by both upstream and downstream translators, thus taking advantage of
> translation memory between both groups.
>
> Openstack encountered the same issue with Transifex last year [2]. Anecdotally,
> their translators prefer the Zanata interface to the Transifex one anyway,
> which would be a bonus if true for us.
>
> # Open questions
>
> I'm not a translator, so some of the details on how we currently handle
> translations are unfamiliar to me. We may need to do some work around the
> integration tooling for GitHub, but I have heard that Openstack have a two-way
> sync; thus, new source changes can be pulled into Zanata for use by the
> translators, and CI processes can pull new translations and send automatic
> review requests in their Gerrit. We can almost certainly do similar. I
> don't know
> what other features we need to handle, input welcome.
>
> # Next steps
>
> I'm happy to send out a quick message and one-question survery on Transifex to
> our translators, but I wanted to be sure it was a good plan before doing so. If
> we can agree here, I'll happy take this forward to them.
+1 from me, since it would make it easier to manage two stream. I do not
know what teh current review process is in Transifex. That would help me
to organize the downstream translators correctly.
Would that fix any merging issues? Would changes not simply remain
within a single project?
It sounds the same as Transifex's reuse feature, though that's limited
to resources within one project (by default) while I think Zanata can
(if configured) work globally.
···
On 26/10/15 16:45, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
> Move translations to Zanata. Red Hat host a public Zanata instance[1]
> which could
> be used by both upstream and downstream translators, thus taking advantage of
> translation memory between both groups.
It is simple, there are actually too few active translators for peer review. From
my own experience, we are not doing any review in French at least.
Claer
···
On Tue, Oct 27 2015 at 33:10, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> On 10/26/2015 12:45 PM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >There's been some discussion around how to handle the conflicts between
> >upstream and downstream translations. I'd like to propose a rather different
> >solution to the ones talked about so far.
> >
> ># Problem
> >
> >We're struggling to collaborate across two different systems. I'm not a
> >translator, but reading into the threads on foreman-dev, it seems that
> >translator efforts are either being overwritten (usually when a downstream
> >translation is merged back upstream), or being ignored (e.g. when we choose not
> >to use a downstream translation because of merge issues). Or have I missed the
> >point?
>
> That is a fair enough summary.
>
> >
> >In addition, Transifex is not an open source tool, although it is
> >free-as-in-beer for open source projects. For an ideal scenario, we should look
> >for an open source platform to use.
> >
> ># Proposal
> >
> >Move translations to Zanata. Red Hat host a public Zanata instance[1]
> >which could
> >be used by both upstream and downstream translators, thus taking advantage of
> >translation memory between both groups.
> >
> >Openstack encountered the same issue with Transifex last year [2]. Anecdotally,
> >their translators prefer the Zanata interface to the Transifex one anyway,
> >which would be a bonus if true for us.
> >
> ># Open questions
> >
> >I'm not a translator, so some of the details on how we currently handle
> >translations are unfamiliar to me. We may need to do some work around the
> >integration tooling for GitHub, but I have heard that Openstack have a two-way
> >sync; thus, new source changes can be pulled into Zanata for use by the
> >translators, and CI processes can pull new translations and send automatic
> >review requests in their Gerrit. We can almost certainly do similar. I
> >don't know
> >what other features we need to handle, input welcome.
> >
> ># Next steps
> >
> >I'm happy to send out a quick message and one-question survery on Transifex to
> >our translators, but I wanted to be sure it was a good plan before doing so. If
> >we can agree here, I'll happy take this forward to them.
>
> +1 from me, since it would make it easier to manage two stream. I do
> not know what teh current review process is in Transifex. That would
> help me to organize the downstream translators correctly.
I believe it can be global yes, from the discussions I've had with
Zanata users. I'll try and get someone with more knowledge to reply
here to clarify.
Greg
···
On 28 October 2015 at 10:07, Dominic Cleal wrote:
> On 26/10/15 16:45, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
>> Move translations to Zanata. Red Hat host a public Zanata instance[1]
>> which could
>> be used by both upstream and downstream translators, thus taking advantage of
>> translation memory between both groups.
>
> Would that fix any merging issues? Would changes not simply remain
> within a single project?
>
> It sounds the same as Transifex's reuse feature, though that's limited
> to resources within one project (by default) while I think Zanata can
> (if configured) work globally.
Sure, but the point I was trying to make was more about what happens if
there's a change. Doesn't that just stay within the project?
···
On 28/10/15 11:42, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
> On 28 October 2015 at 10:07, Dominic Cleal wrote:
>> On 26/10/15 16:45, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
>>> Move translations to Zanata. Red Hat host a public Zanata instance[1]
>>> which could
>>> be used by both upstream and downstream translators, thus taking advantage of
>>> translation memory between both groups.
>>
>> Would that fix any merging issues? Would changes not simply remain
>> within a single project?
>>
>> It sounds the same as Transifex's reuse feature, though that's limited
>> to resources within one project (by default) while I think Zanata can
>> (if configured) work globally.
>
> I *believe* it can be global yes, from the discussions I've had with
> Zanata users. I'll try and get someone with more knowledge to reply
> here to clarify.
There are different versions of each project, so the change I believe
would need to be propegated. I woudl expect we would need to get the
downstream translators to work against the the project versions.
TBH… this will raise the same issue as before. The translators will
make changes against strings with no real review. Based on Claers
comments, that may be the status quo with today.
– bk
···
On 10/28/2015 07:46 AM, Dominic Cleal wrote:
> On 28/10/15 11:42, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
>> On 28 October 2015 at 10:07, Dominic Cleal wrote:
>>> On 26/10/15 16:45, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
>>>> Move translations to Zanata. Red Hat host a public Zanata instance[1]
>>>> which could
>>>> be used by both upstream and downstream translators, thus taking advantage of
>>>> translation memory between both groups.
>>>
>>> Would that fix any merging issues? Would changes not simply remain
>>> within a single project?
>>>
>>> It sounds the same as Transifex's reuse feature, though that's limited
>>> to resources within one project (by default) while I think Zanata can
>>> (if configured) work globally.
>>
>> I *believe* it can be global yes, from the discussions I've had with
>> Zanata users. I'll try and get someone with more knowledge to reply
>> here to clarify.
>
> Sure, but the point I was trying to make was more about what happens if
> there's a change. Doesn't that just stay within the project?
>
This thread has gone really quiet, but Claer and I had a discussion on #theforeman-dev this morning.
He's offered to start using Zanata (the hosted one at http://translate.zanata.org/) in parallel with Transifex and see how
it feels to him as a major translation contributor. Hopefully, once
he's got some feedback for us, we can see what the next steps might
be.
cool… thanks… do I need to move any packages over to zanata?
– bk
···
On 12/21/2015 06:00 AM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
> This thread has gone really quiet, but Claer and I had a discussion on
> #theforeman-dev this morning.
>
> He's offered to start using Zanata (the hosted one at
> http://translate.zanata.org/) in parallel with Transifex and see how
> it feels to him as a major translation contributor. Hopefully, once
> he's got some feedback for us, we can see what the next steps might
> be.
>
> Claer++ thanks for stepping up on this!
>
> Greg
>
I have started to add the strings to a public zanata instance. I will
update when I have them all moved over, but if you want to see a
snapshot see the mappings below. I am adding prs to the projects I as I
go along.
···
On 12/21/2015 06:00 AM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
> This thread has gone really quiet, but Claer and I had a discussion on
> #theforeman-dev this morning.
>
> He's offered to start using Zanata (the hosted one at
> http://translate.zanata.org/) in parallel with Transifex and see how
> it feels to him as a major translation contributor. Hopefully, once
> he's got some feedback for us, we can see what the next steps might
> be.
>
> Claer++ thanks for stepping up on this!
>
> Greg
>
Please don't start merging PRs to Foreman projects - we're still
actively using Transifex.
···
On 27/01/16 00:17, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> On 12/21/2015 06:00 AM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
>> This thread has gone really quiet, but Claer and I had a discussion on
>> #theforeman-dev this morning.
>>
>> He's offered to start using Zanata (the hosted one at
>> http://translate.zanata.org/) in parallel with Transifex and see how
>> it feels to him as a major translation contributor. Hopefully, once
>> he's got some feedback for us, we can see what the next steps might
>> be.
>>
>> Claer++ thanks for stepping up on this!
>>
>> Greg
>>
>
> I have started to add the strings to a public zanata instance. I will
> update when I have them all moved over, but if you want to see a
> snapshot see the mappings below. I am adding prs to the projects I as I
> go along.
>
> https://translate.zanata.org/zanata/iteration/view/foreman/develop/
> https://translate.zanata.org/zanata/iteration/view/foreman-bootdisk/master
> https://translate.zanata.org/zanata/iteration/view/foreman-discovery/develop
> https://translate.zanata.org/zanata/iteration/view/foreman-docker/master
> https://translate.zanata.org/zanata/iteration/view/hammer-cli/master
> https://translate.zanata.org/zanata/iteration/view/hammer-cli-foreman/master
> https://translate.zanata.org/zanata/iteration/view/hammer-cli-foreman-discovery/master
in some cases the zanata files were already there, so the prs just updated
them.
···
On Jan 27, 2016 2:55 AM, "Dominic Cleal" wrote:
On 27/01/16 00:17, Bryan Kearney wrote:
On 12/21/2015 06:00 AM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
This thread has gone really quiet, but Claer and I had a discussion on #theforeman-dev this morning.
He’s offered to start using Zanata (the hosted one at http://translate.zanata.org/) in parallel with Transifex and see how
it feels to him as a major translation contributor. Hopefully, once
he’s got some feedback for us, we can see what the next steps might
be.
Claer++ thanks for stepping up on this!
Greg
I have started to add the strings to a public zanata instance. I will
update when I have them all moved over, but if you want to see a
snapshot see the mappings below. I am adding prs to the projects I as I
go along.
Agreed, the Zanata option needs to be explored and discussed before we can
move to it. I hope to hear how Claer is getting on with it next week at
CfgMgmt
Greg
···
On 27 January 2016 at 07:55, Dominic Cleal wrote:
On 27/01/16 00:17, Bryan Kearney wrote:
On 12/21/2015 06:00 AM, Greg Sutcliffe wrote:
This thread has gone really quiet, but Claer and I had a discussion on #theforeman-dev this morning.
He’s offered to start using Zanata (the hosted one at http://translate.zanata.org/) in parallel with Transifex and see how
it feels to him as a major translation contributor. Hopefully, once
he’s got some feedback for us, we can see what the next steps might
be.
Claer++ thanks for stepping up on this!
Greg
I have started to add the strings to a public zanata instance. I will
update when I have them all moved over, but if you want to see a
snapshot see the mappings below. I am adding prs to the projects I as I
go along.
