> Andreas Stieger wrote:
>> [Pootle] worked sufficiently well for strings that have no special
>> formatting requirements. It also worked well for out-of-band changes,
>> e.g. merging items translated locally with those translated in Pootle.
>>
>> For anything that includes non-trivial help output and special
>> formatting, I found it to be cumbersome.
[...]
>> You would not use the .pot but the .po, so as to not loose existing
>> translations.
>> For other translations: setting them up in Pootle, I did not want to
>> presume that other po maintainers would want to do that.
>>
>> Pootle has automation opportunities of scanning the code base, have not
>> explored.
>>
>> Is that something we want to kick off for the next release?
Andreas, thanks for your thoughts. It sounds like your overall
experience of using Pootle was that it was useful but not great.
Also I see that OpenOffice is the *only* project really using Apache's
Pootle: other than that and Subversion (German only), there is just
JMeter (French only) and two projects that have no major activity.
So the major reason I assumed we should use it -- because I assumed it
was the standard tool for Apache projects -- evaporates. How about we
use transifex (https://www.transifex.com/) then, because it's what
TortoiseSVN is using?
Branko Čibej wrote:
> It wouldn't hurt to bring Subversion into the 20th century, at least as
> far as translations are concerned. :)
+1
> I can help with any scripting but can't promise to lead this effort ...
> NoTimeTM.
Thanks! (And me too.)
- Julian
Received on 2017-02-10 12:48:03 CET