Hi Runa & -l10n members,
Runa A. Sandvik wrote (11 Jun 2013 11:32:25 GMT) :
> The list of resources is pretty long,
I certainly trust your judgement on that one, but I think I personally
lack information to understand what is the actual drawback thereof.
I would feel more comfortable if I understood what's the issues are.
Is it:
[ ] Less practical navigation in the Transifex web interface?
[ ] Tor resources list overwhelmed by tons of tiny Tails resources?
[ ] Anything else?
> and I wonder if it would make sense to (a) merge files so that we
> have a few files with lots of strings - instead of lots of files
> with a few strings,
Data points from my developer's perspective:
* It would be fairly easy to have all our custom scripts (listed on
#8953) share a common textdomain. This way, they would share
POT/PO/MO files.
* About .desktop files (#8955): I don't know if there's any
practical existing way to extract translatable strings from a set
of .desktop files into a POT file, and then build a translated
.desktop from per-language PO files. Maybe Transifex itself can do
this? Anyone interested in researching this a bit?
If .desktop files can't be easily merged into a single resource,
perhaps getting rid of the multiple resources for scripts (#8953)
would be good enough?
If it may unblock things, I do volunteer to merge the #8953's POT/PO
files in June or July.
> or (b) create a separate Transifex project page for Tails.
We've discussed it recently, and decided against this move. We see
quite a few drawbacks in moving our stuff out of the Tor Transifex
project, but (at the time of our discussion), we did not find
convincing advantages to do so. The pros/cons balance may change once
we add the resources list lenght to the mix, though.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
