Is Aptitude upstream?

Khaled Hosny khaledhosny at eglug.org
Sun Aug 1 17:34:13 BST 2010


On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:18:05AM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 12:03 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 11:38:01PM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> >> On 08/01/2010 10:41 PM, Hannie wrote:
> >>> On https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+lang/nl/ I find
> >>> many templates that should not be translated by us, Ubuntu Dutch
> >>> Translation Team. With Gnome and KDE it is not so difficult, because it
> >>> is usually in the name. But with others I am not sure if we should
> >>> translate them or not. One of them is Aptitude. Is this upstream
> >>> (Debian), or not?
> >>> https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+source/aptitude/+pots/aptitude/nl/+translate?field.alternative_language-empty-marker=1
> >>> In fact, only few of the 1340 templates are NOT upstream (e.g.
> >>> (K)Ubuntu-docs, software-center, app-install-data).
> >>> Would it not be a good idea to mention in the list of templates whether
> >>> it is upstream or Ubuntu?
> >>> Hannie Dumoleyn
> >>
> >> In general, you should translate any template where translations are
> >> still missing, no matter if they come from upstream or they are native
> >> to Ubuntu.
> >
> > I think this is a very bad advice actually, we are not helping better
> > localisation by wasting time doing downstream translations that are very
> > unlikely to be used upstream. We should instead encourage Ubuntu
> 
> If those strings show up in the GUI, they will be visible to the Ubuntu 
> users and hence should be translated. Even if upstream has abandoned 
> them already or they are native to Ubuntu, users still see them.

I never said otherwise, I'm just against the idea of translating them
silently in Ubuntu, I instead suggest communicating with upstream
translators beforehand to avoid any possiple duplication of effort.

> > translators to communicate with upstream projects to reach a common
> > background. For example, though packages in Ubuntu might be slightly
> > older than current upstream releases, usually the differences are
> > minimal that it is very easy to translate the latest version upstream
> > then "backport" it to the version in Ubuntu and then fix any
> > differences. This means with next upstream sync, the difference will be
> > zero to very minimal. Most translation teams are underpowered unpaid
> 
> Yep, I also wrote this.
> 
> > volunteers, we need to manage those limited resources for the greater
> > benefit, not wasting time redoing translations and re-reviewing
> > translations.
> 
> Of course, if upstream has already translations which are still missing 
> in Launchpad, they should just get downloaded and imported into 
> Launchpad manually. But if upstream doesn't have translations ready yet 
> and we are close to release, it would be better if those strings get 
> translated in Launchpad anyway and submitted to upstream for inclusion 
> into the next packaged version.

I can't agree more, but your original advise wasn't suggesting this, not
the way I read it at at least. I just want to stress on communicating
and cooperating with upstream right from the start, not as an after
thought.

Putting my upstream hat, I hate downstream translators "fixing" non-bugs
in my translation because they didn't even try to communicate with me.
With my downstream hat on, I hate spending my already limited time doing
translation that will be trashed within few months because some one else
already translated it upstream.

Regards,
 Khaled

-- 
 Khaled Hosny
 Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team
 Free font developer



More information about the ubuntu-translators mailing list