ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu: contemplating some string changes

[Ask Hjorth Larsen]

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Danilo Šegan <danilo at canonical.com> wrote:
> У чет, 01. 04 2010. у 18:53 +0200, Ask Hjorth Larsen пише:
>
>> But many translators (and definitely *all* reviewers, people with
>> permission to accept suggestions) should know what fuzzy means.  When
>> dealing with a fuzzy message it is clearly necessary to see what the
>> difference from the previous English message was - which is true for
>> all semi-automatic translation suggestions.  It seems that fuzzy
>> support was eliminated because the translation teams are not *trusted*
>> to handle them correctly, which is not a very nice thing.  It should
>> be assumed that translation teams know what they are doing.
>
> There was never "fuzzy" support in Launchpad. And since Launchpad
> exposed PO file fuzzy flags as "needs review" feature, it was very
> confusing since there were also "unreviewed suggestions".
>
> So it's not about not trusting translation teams, it's about making
> Launchpad an effective tool.

That does make more sense.  It would still be great with real fuzzy
support, I'll hope to see that in the future.

>> I don't want to sound too antagonistic here (we all want to improve
>> Rosetta!), but I view the lack of support for fuzzy strings as a
>> serious problem, making launchpad translations inherently more
>> wasteful when comparing to 'direct' po-file translations (such as the
>> GNOME damned lies translation site or translationproject.org).
>
> Do remember that Launchpad is open source now as well. There is only so
> much we can do, but there are unlimited possibilities for anyone else.
> And then again, Launchpad does deal with PO files directly.
>
>> Do the downloaded files from Launchpad contain the fuzzies (such that
>> they are still there behind the scenes)?  Or is that only true of the
>> upstream versions?  I didn't find any fuzzies in the modules I just
>> tested, so I assume no.  But I would very much like the answer to be
>> yes.
>
> No, but you don't need them either.  What you need, and what fuzzies are
> generated from are part of "obsolete" messages.  msgmerge should reuse
> them (obsolete messages are still "translated").
>
> Eg. try that with any translation like that.

Right, I see that the obsolete messages are still in the file, which
is apparently sufficient and thus quite valuable.  Thanks.

Best regards
Ask Hjorth Larsen