Re: [libreoffice-l10n] Behaviour of the "Needs editing" flag in Weblate

Hi Christian,

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I think perhaps the key issue here 
is Weblate using the words "Needs editing" with two quite different 
meanings, depending on the configuration. In some projects hosted on 
other Weblate instances, "Needs editing" basically means "I'll let this 
one pass for now but someone needs to take a look at it at some point" 
whereas currently in TDF Weblate it means "Nope, not gonna fly, this one 
goes immediately back to the drawing board". But this is of course not 
specifically related to LO/TDF and should probably be addressed 
upstream.

I'm fine with the current configuration, too, but I think it will keep 
causing surprises to translators in the future if it's not documented 
properly. With regard to search, in Weblate it mostly works very well, 
but is not the answer here when the problem is how to mark found dubious 
strings for later review/editing. As for the review workflow, I have no 
experience of it but I'd guess it would probably need more active 
translators than the Finnish l10n team currently has to be worthwhile.

Cheers,
Tuomas

Christian Lohmaier kirjoitti 14.2.2020 16:53:
> Hi *,
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:22 AM sophi <sophi@libreoffice.org> wrote:
> > Le 14/02/2020 à 10:49, Tuomas Hietala a écrit :
> > >
> > > I already unflagged many of them as I saw what was happening, but here's
> > > an example that I can cofirm showing up in English in Finnish-language
> > > LO as of 6.4.0:
> > > 
> > https://weblate.documentfoundation.org/translate/libo_ui-master/filtermessages/fi/?checksum=90e8d59d903deeb9
> > >
> > > It's in the PDF export dialog, on the second tab from the left.
> >
> > That should not fall back to English if the string is fuzzy.
>
> That's default behaviour for gettext/msgfmt though. By default fuzzy
> strings are ignored and not taken into account/are omitted from the
> generated .mo file.
> And fuzzy/needs work is default behaviour in weblate, so no changes
> here. So if other projects treat fuzzy translations as valid in the
> program, they either explicitly use the --use-fuzzy switch to msgfmt
> or filter it out using some other means.
>
> And traditionally it is used to flags strings that were
> auto-translated during the update of templates, where the change looks
> similar enough for the msgmerge program that it thinks the translation
> is the same, but with slight changes that make it not 100% certain
> about it. Sure it can be used by humans as well, but for that most
> tools (at least the web-based ones) have replaced that by the concept
> of suggestions. (but they would work similar fashion: unless it is
> accepted the string will be treated as untranslated (or the current
> translation will be used in case the suggestion is to change an
> existing one)
>
> Weblate would allow for a dedicated review workflow, in which a
> translated string would still be listed as translated, but will still
> be flagged for review.
> This would be a project-wide setting though and not a language specific 
> one.
> https://docs.weblate.org/en/weblate-3.10.3/workflows.html#dedicated-reviewers
>
> If it is about reviewing changes by new translators, you could also
> use a project's history and advanced search.
> There's history available under e.g.
> https://weblate.documentfoundation.org/languages/fi/#history for all
> projects for a language or
> https://weblate.documentfoundation.org/languages/fi/libo_help-master/#history
> for a specific project.
>
> Also you can use search with advanced query tags, e.g.
> changed:>=2020-01-01 AND NOT changed_by:cloph
>
> for all changes done since January first and not done by me. (I assume
> excluding a small group of reviewers here is easier than listing
> "untrusted"/watched users here.)
>
> tldr;
> * fuzzy strings are considered untranslated
>   → could be changed in msgfmt invocation
>       → changing that requires consensus of ~all translation teams
> * weblate would support review workflow
>   → can only be changed on a per-project level
>      → should have consensus by significant number of translation teams
>      (not using the process will not break things per se, it just
> means that permissions need to be tweaked that every translator can
> also set their own translation as reviewed or people need to ignore
> "needs review" state)
> * weblate has history/powerful search that can be used to review
> strings manually/in batch without a special flag
>   → no consensus needed/each project can do whatever they want
>      → manual work/need to manually keep track of "last checked date"
> or similar.
>
> ciao
> Christian

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: l10n+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy