Re: [Libreoffice] LO Pootle

Hi Kendy,
On 30/12/2010 03:05, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> Hi Sophie,
>
> Thank you for all the explanations! :-)
>
> On 2010-12-29 at 21:00 +0300, Sophie Gautier wrote:
>
> > This is now two/three months that we didn't touch the files because we
> > do not have them in the LO Pootle repository and we are not working any
> > more on the OOo Pootle repository. So some teams have now a fair amount
> > of issues to fix in their files, that will take time and resources, and
> > we need to have the complete set of files in the LO Pootle repository
> > for that.
>
> I see, OK.  What is at the moment blocking the import of the content of
> the OOo Pootle into the LO Pootle, please?  Just some missing tooling,
> or the decision of what is the source for the translations&  how to
> organize them?

I think we have kept the file "LO only" for the 3.3, because we didn't 
have any process and we were not sure of who will admin, take care of 
every thing or even participate ;).
We have had several members of our team able to take care of the Pootle 
server, of updating the files and pushing them into the sources (and BTW 
thanks a lot for their work, I'm proud to belong to this family :-) Also 
we get now a large number of teams participating to LO l10n.
So now that 3.3 translation is almost over, I think we need to go 
further and have a complete process in place again. Hence my questions 
here ;-)
> On 2010-12-29 at 21:00 +0300, Sophie Gautier wrote:
>
> > > Ah, maybe I understand now ;-)  So of course, it is up to you to define
> > > if you want to have the translations merged from the OOo tree to the LO
> > > tree for 3.4, or not.  I understand it that you'd prefer not to, ie.
> > > l10n repo (containing the localize.sdf's) untouched by the merges from
> > > OOo, right?
> >
> > That was what I was not sure about: all the new features and bug fixes
> > for OOo will be merged to the LO tree for 3.4.
>
> Most probably we won't be merging everything, which might cause trouble
> when merging the localizations as a whole :-(

yes, that might cause problems.
> > In that case yes, we want the l10n repo merged and containing all the
> > new features or fixes strings from OOo. And the sooner the better
> > whatever the amount of strings :-)
> > So that means that we can extract the strings from the last OOoDEV and
> > merge them with our LO file to have the complete (UI+HC2) set of strings
> > up to date until now?
>
> Based on what you wrote, I think for LO master (towards-3.4), the best
> would be to extract all the strings from the current git repositories
> (ie. from the LO master branch, not from OOoDEV) to have the complete
> set(so that it would look similar to what is in the OOo Pootle now, but
> based on LO sources), and msgmerge the translations from OOo and from
> lo-build.po.  That way, it would be easy to merge updated translations
> from OOo later (should there be any), while still having the LO strings
> as the base.  Or are there reasons not to do that?

I don't see any issue, proceeding from our branch may be the best way, 
you're right. Others, do you see any issue with your process if we 
proceed as Kendy proposed?
> BTW - would it help you if we got rid of the sdf files, and instead we
> had .po files in the l10n git repository?  [For sure it would help us
> who work with the git repos, because the sdf file format is just
> something incredibly terrible for version control.]  Would you be able
> to merge directly from the OOo Pootle, or from .po files produced by
> that, or do you still need .sdf for part of your workflow?

Provided we answer Andras points and Martin question, for me it's ok. 
Also, we need to make sure that the teams working with xliff files are 
happy too.
L10n teams, if you see something missing or wrong for you, please do not 
hesitate to raise your voice as Martin did. We are discussing and having 
all the issues in the hand at the beginning is always a better way to go ;)

Kind regards
Sophie