Rosetta/bzr (was: What is an Upstream?)

[Carlos Perelló Marín]

El mar, 07-11-2006 a las 17:39 -0600, kiko at async.com.br escribió:
> (Carlos, Danilo: please help me pick out bugs that may need to be filed
> from this thread)

Most of them are already filed, but will do with anything missing or
pointing to the right ones.

Also, we went thru this mail with Joey Stanford
(https://launchpad.net/people/jjs) and I think we reach an agreement on
what should be done. In fact, most of it is already done or it's
scheduled to be implemented already.

> 
> On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 12:31:12PM +0000, Tim Morley wrote:
> >    On 7 Nov 2006, at 09:01, Dominik Zablotny wrote:
> >      <IMHO>
> >      "Best practice" would be shutting down Rosetta and putting .po files in
> >      version control system like bzr, then creating some cute extension for
> >      kbabel or potool to make beginners feel more comfortable.
> >      Until it takes over all the world, Rosetta is a barier in collaboration.
> >      </IMHO>
> > 
> >    Hear hear! Until we can trace who translated what, with the option of
> >    reverting it; until we have (at least the option of) comments accompanying
> >    changes; until we can trace the evolution of a translation, noting whose
> >    contribution gave us what: I don't see how Rosetta can hope to produce
> >    good quality translations.
> 
> Not to say I don't agree that history is a required feature for good QA,
> I'd just like to point out that Rosetta /does/ keep a full translation
> history for each individual string in the database. It's true that we
> haven't disclosed part of that information until recently, and that we
> could display it in a "history-friendly" manner (but currently don't).
> The truth is, though, that we have really good infrastructure but only
> average-power tools to manipulate the data that is there. This will
> change over the coming months as we focus on tools to make QA and
> collaboration much easier.

In fact, the big missing part right now is who approved a string so we
can 'review' reviewers work (and also help us to debug possible problems
in Rosetta like the one raised by bug http://launchpad.net/bugs/68014).
The code that stores that information and shows it also to the final
user is now ready to be deployed and it should be available quite soon
on production. Unfortunately, we don't have old data, so we will start
collecting that information once it's deployed. What we did with old
translations is that the reviewer is the same that did the translation,
which is not always correct... but it's the best option IMHO.

> 
> >    people who wouldn't otherwise have been able or been bothered; but this
> >    came at the price of now having no idea who translated what, having no
> >    accompanying notes saying e.g. "This translation is just a best guess;
> >    feel free to suggest something different", or alternatively, "Here is a
> >    list of quality references backing up this translation", so we now have to
> >    go through and double-check everything, even things that the original
> >    translator has already researched and checked in detail, because we've no
> >    way of *knowing* that any given entry has already been researched and
> >    checked.
> 
> So from this paragraph, for a checklist of features that you'd like to
> be able to better manage translations:
> 
>     - Who contributed an approved translation (implemented)
>     - Who approved a contributed translations (to be rolled out next week)
>     - Whether the translation should be reviewed or not (implemented):

Current implementation is quite weak in this point, as part of the
reviewing interface branch I'm working on, we will have extra UI changes
to see messages that have suggestions to be reviewed. With that change,
I think we will have enough tools to cope with this point.

>     - Translator notes/whiteboard for each string (planned but not
>       implemented)

This is bug https://launchpad.net/products/rosetta/+bug/211

> 
> Is that correct, excluding the part about knowing an entry has been
> checked?
> 
> For the "already checked" part I've got a question. Currently the way
> Rosetta works is, if you are using moderated mode, that anybody can
> contribute a translation, but it won't actually be used until somebody
> who is in the translation team approves it. We know there are
> limitations and confusions that stem from the fact that the translation
> team isn't clearly a review team, but if that was solved, do you think
> we'd still have this sort of problem? In other words, is the fact that a
> translation has been approved by a reviewer (and you know who he is)
> enough for you to be happy that it has been properly verified? Perhaps
> that in addition to a whiteboard?

I think the answer is 'yes', if you have a whiteboard to clarify why
something was choose when it's not something 100% clear that it should
be that way.

Cheers.

> 
> Take care,
> -- 
> Christian Robottom Reis | http://async.com.br/~kiko/ | [+55 16] 3361 2331
> 
-- 
Carlos Perelló Marín
Ubuntu => http://www.ubuntu.com
mailto:carlos.perello at canonical.com
http://carlos.pemas.net
Alicante - Spain
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada
	digitalmente
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/rosetta-users/attachments/20061107/3921ae54/attachment.pgp