Quantcast

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

Christian Rose-2
lör 2005-06-04 klockan 16:22 -0700 skrev Bryce Harrington:

> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 12:38:50AM +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
> > I'd like to ask a question (or rather two):
> >
> > * Are there any plans on using GNOME CVS and GNOME Bugzilla
> > for Inkscape development?
>
> We've been using SourceForge CVS since the project started.  Sodipodi
> (Inkscape's predecessor) was in GNOME CVS.  At the time, getting a CVS
> account for GNOME was a bit too manual of a process (requiring bugging
> GNOME administrators.)  Those of us who had been Sodipodi developers had
> found that being allowed access to GNOME CVS was difficult and time
> consuming; IIRC it took several months for me to get GNOME CVS access.

I'm quite sure things have improved since then. Typically, the time span
for getting an account nowadays is between a few hours and a couple of
days at most.


> Also, since Inkscape was born as a fork of Sodipodi, there was also some
> worry that GNOME would not allow us to use their CVS.

Oh, that shouldn't have been a worry at all. There are several projects
in GNOME CVS that are essentially forks of other software in GNOME CVS.
Epiphany is a good example; it started as a fork of Galeon. Both
projects are still using GNOME CVS, and there was never any controversy
over that. The only controversy was over which one of them should
eventually go into the GNOME Core release, but that was a totally
different matter.


> The main downside
> we faced was that we'd lose the involvement of the GNOME translators,
> which we'd had very good experiences with in Sodipodi.  A second
> downside is that SourceForge CVS has been problematic (and slow)
> compared with GNOME CVS.
>
> However, despite being outside GNOME's translation community, we've
> nonetheless gained very good involvement from translators.  Certainly
> not 115 languages, but then my guess is that many of those languages are
> not actively maintained anyway, and that Inkscape would not gain
> translations into more than a few new languages.

You're right, it's certainly not 115 very active teams, even though
almost all of them are active to some degree.
Anyway, when I browsed through the Inkscape po files I found that many
of them essentially dated back to the Sodipodi days, so while Inkscape
certainly hasn't a big shortage on translations, it seems the situation
hasn't been as improving as it could have been doing during the time.


> Translation looks to be pretty simple - for a given language there is
> just one file to update.  Certainly that file is important, but
> important enough to warrant changing CVS?  I guess I'm unclear on
> particularly why GNOME CVS makes translation so much easier?

I guess I failed to communicate the most important issue here. That
issue is:

        * Since you're essentially doing your sort of own translation
        project with Inkscape, how do you solve issues of translation
        quality control and peer review?

In other words, what would stop someone else from submitting a poorer
Swedish Inkscape translation and having it committed, just weeks after I
sent in mine? Do you keep track of your translations and who translates
into what language? Do you ask people to confirm that they are ok with
translations? Do you ask multiple volunteers for any language to get in
contact with each other and sort issues out themselves, or do you just
hope that any latest translation sent in by anyone is the one to commit,
and hope that any issues will be caught by end users after the next
Inkscape release?

Even if you do try to take care of these issues by having some control
over who translates into what language, it's often a delicate process,
since oneself cannot be the judge of "which translation is better and is
this person right in claiming there is a problem with this
translation?". I certainly myself don't know all the languages of the
world, and even if I would, I wouldn't know it as good as a person who
has the language as his mother tongue and spends much of his time
translating into that language.

That's why a proper translation team divides its translators into
language teams, to make the translators in the team (hopefully)
collaborate and do some peer review on each other. In practice, this
usually works out very well for improving translation quality and
keeping a high quality over time.

Most of this is described at
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/tutorials/gnome-i18n/developer.html#use-a-tp
, together with other good points.

Of course, to do this one needs to have a lot of translators that can be
organized into groups, and that already have quite some experience in
translating, and this essentially means using some existing translation
project service. Reinventing the wheel is not good use of time, and
neither is recruiting people and making them get together, when there
are already projects that do that.

Since Inkscape has previous connections to GNOME (using some GNOME
technologies, following the HIG, etc.) I thought that using the GNOME
Translation Project would be the best choice. However, using the GNOME
Translation Project requires that the software be in GNOME CVS. It's
simply not feasible for us to educate hundreds of translators how to
update a translation in a completely different CVS repository, make them
have access to that different CVS, and adopt all our automatic tools
(like the translation status pages at http://l10n-status.gnome.org/) to
work with that different CVS as well.
An important point of the GNOME Translation Project is that translators
should easily be able translate many different pieces of software, and
many of our translators also do. Also, many of the translators (at least
one in each team, and many teams have many more than one) have CVS
access themselves and are able to quickly commit their translations and
translations for other members in their team, so the translations get
really fast upstream.

And it only works because all translators work against the same CVS
repository.


Granted, there are other translation projects as well. The Translation
Project (http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/contrib/po/HTML/) is a translation
project that serves as a translation service for many different software
projects, and it doesn't rely on a central CVS repository or something
like that. It's essentially a mail-based translation service, although
it has all the benefits of language teams and so on behind the scenes.

Still, I think the GNOME Translation Project would be a better match,
since Inkscape has connections to the rest of GNOME.


> Now, we *have* seriously considered switching how we manage source code,
> but I think the general concensus is that we want to move *away* from
> CVS to something like Subversion, that would give us more powerful code
> management.  Our hope is that SourceForge will eventually implement
> this, although since SF seems to be taking a long time to get this, I
> think we'd consider other Subversion providers.

GNOME is currently considering a switch to a replacement for CVS. It's
being discussed on the gnome-hackers list
(http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/). Subversion and Arch
seems (according to my analysis of the threads) to be the main
contenders, although Subversion seems to be the favorite since it has
the benefit of being more close to how CVS works.

So you wouldn't actually be losing a chance to change SCM tool by
migrating to cvs.gnome.org. In fact, the change on gnome.org might
perhaps even happen before Sourceforge would do it. However, it's a
community decision.


> Anyway, you may be right that it would make things more convenient for
> the GNOME translators, and it's possible that would gain us more
> translations.  On the other hand, it risks making it more difficult for
> new developers to get CVS accounts, would take a lot of effort to migrate,

As for making sure CVS repository files get imported and making sure
accounts get arranged, I promise that I'll help out as much as I can.

If you don't trust my word for it, please ask other people who maintain
software in cvs.gnome.org, and what their experiences are on getting CVS
accounts arranged for the last year or so. :)


> and it doesn't correspond with our ultimate goal to move to
> Subversion anyway...  So it's not entirely clear to me if this is worth
> the effort of doing.  It might help to have a better idea of
> specifically how many GNOME developers/translators would contribute
> significantly to Inkscape if it was in GNOME CVS.  I assume most people
> that wish to contribute to Inkscape would be able to just upload patches
> or request a CVS account from us.
>
> We've also considered alternate bug trackers, but most people are
> suitably comfortable with the SourceForge tracker so there's no plans to
> change.  I'm not sure what Bugzilla would buy us, other than imposing a
> more confusing user interface on our poor users.  ;-) If we did change
> we'd probably adopt Mantis rather than Bugzilla.

Oh. We've had many projects move to GNOME Bugzilla just because they
utterly detest Sourceforge's bug tracker and its lack of more advanced
features so much. This is the first time I hear that someone likes it as
it is. :)

Anyway, yes, Bugzilla is more complex. On the other hand, the GNOME
bugmasters are constantly working on improving Bugzilla, and part of
that is making it easier to report bugs:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/simple-bug-guide.cgi

Hint: Try to report a bug in the translation of a piece of software, say
the Swedish translation of gedit. The bug report will be automatically
assigned to a translator in the affected GNOME Translation project
language team, in this case Swedish, so that he or she is immediately
notified about the problem. Neat, isn't it?


Thanks for your comments,
Christian



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.  How far can you shotput
a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.  
Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

Bryce Harrington
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 03:33:19AM +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
> You're right, it's certainly not 115 very active teams, even though
> almost all of them are active to some degree.
> Anyway, when I browsed through the Inkscape po files I found that many
> of them essentially dated back to the Sodipodi days, so while Inkscape
> certainly hasn't a big shortage on translations, it seems the situation
> hasn't been as improving as it could have been doing during the time.

This is true; also the number of translated languages hasn't increased
for a very long time.

Judging from http://l10n-status.gnome.org/gnome-2.12/index.html, GNOME
has 52 languages that have translation ratios over 50%.  Do you think
that would be a reasonable estimate for the number of translations
Inkscape could expect to have if it were to tap into this resource?

> > Translation looks to be pretty simple - for a given language there is
> > just one file to update.  Certainly that file is important, but
> > important enough to warrant changing CVS?  I guess I'm unclear on
> > particularly why GNOME CVS makes translation so much easier?
>
> I guess I failed to communicate the most important issue here. That
> issue is:
>
> * Since you're essentially doing your sort of own translation
> project with Inkscape, how do you solve issues of translation
> quality control and peer review?
>
> In other words, what would stop someone else from submitting a poorer
> Swedish Inkscape translation and having it committed, just weeks after I
> sent in mine? Do you keep track of your translations and who translates
> into what language? Do you ask people to confirm that they are ok with
> translations? Do you ask multiple volunteers for any language to get in
> contact with each other and sort issues out themselves, or do you just
> hope that any latest translation sent in by anyone is the one to commit,
> and hope that any issues will be caught by end users after the next
> Inkscape release?

These are all good questions, can you explain how the GNOME translation
project handles these things?  (I didn't see them explicitly explained
on the URL you gave.)

Note that the Inkscape Translation team does much more than just
translate the software.  They also do great work at translating the SVG
tutorials and the Inkscape Manual.

> Since Inkscape has previous connections to GNOME (using some GNOME
> technologies, following the HIG, etc.) I thought that using the GNOME
> Translation Project would be the best choice. However, using the GNOME
> Translation Project requires that the software be in GNOME CVS. It's
> simply not feasible for us to educate hundreds of translators how to
> update a translation in a completely different CVS repository, make them
> have access to that different CVS, and adopt all our automatic tools
> (like the translation status pages at http://l10n-status.gnome.org/) to
> work with that different CVS as well.

What ways exist that would allow your team to do the translations in
GNOME CVS without requiring the entire Inkscape project to change CVS
systems?  Even an approach that was partly manual or otherwise imperfect
might at least allow your team to improve Inkscape's state of
translation.

Do the translators only work on the .po files, or do they make
modifications to files in the codebase itself (e.g. to adjust the
original strings)?

> > Now, we *have* seriously considered switching how we manage source code,
> > but I think the general concensus is that we want to move *away* from
> > CVS to something like Subversion, that would give us more powerful code
> > management.  Our hope is that SourceForge will eventually implement
> > this, although since SF seems to be taking a long time to get this, I
> > think we'd consider other Subversion providers.
>
> GNOME is currently considering a switch to a replacement for CVS. It's
> being discussed on the gnome-hackers list
> (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/). Subversion and Arch
> seems (according to my analysis of the threads) to be the main
> contenders, although Subversion seems to be the favorite since it has
> the benefit of being more close to how CVS works.

Interesting, well like I said, if GNOME were to provide Subversion,
Inkscape would be very interested in switching to it.  Maybe this would
be the best way to go?  Fwiw, we'd be willing to be beta-testers for the
service if it were available.

> > Anyway, you may be right that it would make things more convenient for
> > the GNOME translators, and it's possible that would gain us more
> > translations.  On the other hand, it risks making it more difficult for
> > new developers to get CVS accounts, would take a lot of effort to migrate,
>
> As for making sure CVS repository files get imported and making sure
> accounts get arranged, I promise that I'll help out as much as I can.
>
> If you don't trust my word for it, please ask other people who maintain
> software in cvs.gnome.org, and what their experiences are on getting CVS
> accounts arranged for the last year or so. :)

We have over 30 users with CVS access - what would be the process of
getting them access?  Would each of them have to re-apply for access, or
could it be done magically in bulk?

Bryce


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.  How far can you shotput
a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.  
Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

Luca Bruno
In reply to this post by Christian Rose-2
Christian Rose <[hidden email]> scrisse:

> I guess I failed to communicate the most important issue here. That
> issue is:
>
> * Since you're essentially doing your sort of own translation
> project with Inkscape, how do you solve issues of translation
> quality control and peer review?
>
> In other words, what would stop someone else from submitting a poorer
> Swedish Inkscape translation and having it committed, just weeks after
> I sent in mine? Do you keep track of your translations and who
> translates into what language? Do you ask people to confirm that they
> are ok with translations? Do you ask multiple volunteers for any
> language to get in contact with each other and sort issues out
> themselves, or do you just hope that any latest translation sent in by
> anyone is the one to commit, and hope that any issues will be caught
> by end users after the next Inkscape release?
I do not know what happens in other tp, but I can speak of mine
(Italian).
I translate inkscape in Italian, and I currently work in cooperation
with the Gnome-team a gimp translator, so switching to Gnome CVS isn't
needed IMHO.
Also, all the Italian sub-team send translations to a master and general
list, in order to get multiple revision by everybody, not only by your
own team.

This is the quality control for my translation (almost no error, uniform
with the Gnome project and other italian localized program).

Ciao, Luca

--

 .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **  | Luca Bruno
: :'  :   The Universal O.S.    | luca.br(AT)uno.it
`. `'`   | GPG Key ID: 3BFB9FB3 on keyserver.linux.it
  `-     http://www.debian.org  | Proud Debian GNU/Linux User

attachment0 (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

Christian Rose-2
In reply to this post by Bryce Harrington
lör 2005-06-04 klockan 19:44 -0700 skrev Bryce Harrington:

> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 03:33:19AM +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
> > You're right, it's certainly not 115 very active teams, even though
> > almost all of them are active to some degree.
> > Anyway, when I browsed through the Inkscape po files I found that many
> > of them essentially dated back to the Sodipodi days, so while Inkscape
> > certainly hasn't a big shortage on translations, it seems the situation
> > hasn't been as improving as it could have been doing during the time.
>
> This is true; also the number of translated languages hasn't increased
> for a very long time.
>
> Judging from http://l10n-status.gnome.org/gnome-2.12/index.html, GNOME
> has 52 languages that have translation ratios over 50%.  Do you think
> that would be a reasonable estimate for the number of translations
> Inkscape could expect to have if it were to tap into this resource?

Yes, certainly. Of course it is a difficult estimation, since free
software translators essentially work on whatever they want, so it is
difficult to predict whether a particular application will gain special
attraction from translators or not. There are many factors such as the
popularity of that piece of software, the total amount of messages to
translate, and how easy or difficult the messages are to translate, that
may affect whether translators are happy about translating a particylar
application.

But Sodipodi in GNOME CVS currently has translations into 41 languages,
whereas Inkscape has 33. Since I think Inkscape has become much more
wellknown than Sodipodi, I think an estimation of about 50 languages can
certainly be reasonable, given some time of course.

Looking more at the specifics, these are the languages for which
Inkscape has translations, but Sodipodi does not (with translated
percentage):

        es_MX Spanish (Mexico) 26.6%
        nn Norwegian nynorsk 96.7%

The following are the languages for which Sodipodi has translations, but
Inkscape does not:

        en_CA English (Canada) 100%
        en_GB English (Britain) 100%
        fi Finnish 84.7%
        hr Croatian 88.6%
        ko Korean 82.4%
        mn Mongolian 87.8%
        pa Panjabi 61.3%
        rw Kinyarwanda 20.0%
        sq Albanian 18.9%
        zh_TW Chinese (traditional) 100%


> > > Translation looks to be pretty simple - for a given language there is
> > > just one file to update.  Certainly that file is important, but
> > > important enough to warrant changing CVS?  I guess I'm unclear on
> > > particularly why GNOME CVS makes translation so much easier?
> >
> > I guess I failed to communicate the most important issue here. That
> > issue is:
> >
> > * Since you're essentially doing your sort of own translation
> > project with Inkscape, how do you solve issues of translation
> > quality control and peer review?
> >
> > In other words, what would stop someone else from submitting a poorer
> > Swedish Inkscape translation and having it committed, just weeks after I
> > sent in mine? Do you keep track of your translations and who translates
> > into what language? Do you ask people to confirm that they are ok with
> > translations? Do you ask multiple volunteers for any language to get in
> > contact with each other and sort issues out themselves, or do you just
> > hope that any latest translation sent in by anyone is the one to commit,
> > and hope that any issues will be caught by end users after the next
> > Inkscape release?
>
> These are all good questions, can you explain how the GNOME translation
> project handles these things?  (I didn't see them explicitly explained
> on the URL you gave.)

Essentially it is up to the teams to decide how they organize their
work. The first one that volunteers for translating into a particular
language gets to do that, and may become the coordinator for that
language if he or she does want that. Then we direct all further
volunteers for that language to get in contact with their coordinator
first -- we do not accept any translations without approval from the
coordinator for the affected language. This may sound harsh, but it
helps build up teams and get volunteers to cooperate in their teams, and
encourages some sort of peer review.
If volunteers should complain that the current coordinator for their
language isn't responsive or misbehaves, then we try to deal with that
from the GNOME Translation Project side of things, but those situations
are fortunately rare. Most of the time, the teams work like ecosystems
of their own, producing translations with very little administrative
overhead from a central point of view (since they commit their work
themselves, and decide on most administrativia themselves). At the same
time, enforcing teams makes sure that the translations are reviewed, or
at the very least that the translation team for that language beleives
that the translators in their team to produce good quality translations
and gives them blanket permission to do so.

Exactly how the teams review translations is up to them -- some teams
have a very strict policy that everything must be reviewed before being
put into CVS, while others, after some initial review of the work of the
translator, may give him or her blanket permission.

But in the end, this is all very much like a maintainer/contributor
situation with patches and the like. The difference here with
translations is that the "project" the team works on is essentially a
metaproject: It is all of the modules aggregated in the same repository,
instead of a single module. So while in software you have one maintainer
per module, and contributors working on (perhaps) different files in
that module, but only one contributor per file at the time, in
translation the "module" is the complete repository, and the translation
contributors are working on different modules, but only one contributor
per module at the time.

Taking the analogy to the other end, it gives some hints why having
seperate translation teams per software module usually is not a good
idea: It would similar to having a software module where every single
file had a different maintainer with full decisive control over that
file, and no central management. It would perhaps work in some cases,
but in most cases it would probably not be a good way to build a
consistent product.


> Note that the Inkscape Translation team does much more than just
> translate the software.  They also do great work at translating the SVG
> tutorials and the Inkscape Manual.

The problem with most text-based (or XML-based) formats that include
translations is that it is virtually impossible to maintain the
translations once they've been completed the first time. In other words,
it is often extremely tedious work to figure out whether something
changed that requires an update to the translated strings when something
has changed, or whether the change was something that doesn't need an
update to the translated strings, and then to incorporate the changes.
Because of this, it is not uncommon to see translated XML files that
represent how the original XML file was ten revisions ago, or being a
mess with some changes accidentally left out, while other changes are
in, and so on.

This is why we are moving to be using xml2po (part of gnome-doc-utils)
in GNOME. That lets us extract the information that should be
translated, and only the information that should be translated, from XML
files, and then produce XML files from the translated po files. This
allows translators to concentrate on the translated content only, with
the change detection that po tools already support, and at the same time
produce XML files with their non-translateable data and structure being
up to date with the original.


> > Since Inkscape has previous connections to GNOME (using some GNOME
> > technologies, following the HIG, etc.) I thought that using the GNOME
> > Translation Project would be the best choice. However, using the GNOME
> > Translation Project requires that the software be in GNOME CVS. It's
> > simply not feasible for us to educate hundreds of translators how to
> > update a translation in a completely different CVS repository, make them
> > have access to that different CVS, and adopt all our automatic tools
> > (like the translation status pages at http://l10n-status.gnome.org/) to
> > work with that different CVS as well.
>
> What ways exist that would allow your team to do the translations in
> GNOME CVS without requiring the entire Inkscape project to change CVS
> systems?  Even an approach that was partly manual or otherwise imperfect
> might at least allow your team to improve Inkscape's state of
> translation.
>
> Do the translators only work on the .po files, or do they make
> modifications to files in the codebase itself (e.g. to adjust the
> original strings)?

Usually not, although some few elite translators are very good at
producing bug reports and patches (or commit directly, if allowed) for
code or language problems that they encounter when translating. Again,
if you think this is desirable, this is very a good reason for using the
GTP. I have received comments from many maintainers who do not consider
themselves experts in internationalization issues, that they think it is
absolutely excellent that translators are able to fix most problems they
encounter themselves, without the maintainer or other contributors
having to deal with it and resolve it somehow.

>From your description, it sounds like you are asking whether there would
be some way for us to synchronize po files with Inkscape, and
incorporating Inkscape into the GNOME Translation Project, without
Inkscape actually moving to GNOME CVS. The answer is simple: no.
The more verbose explanation for this is that we've tried this many
times in the past; i.e. hosting pot files and translations for modules
that weren't actually in GNOME CVS. Usually some person set it up and
offered to do the synchronization with upstream, but eventually it
failed in every single case. Synchronization of translations across
different repositories is a tedious, unattractive, and boring task. It
may also be a complex task when having to deal with conflicts for
whatever reason. Also, not everyone can do it, as it requires CVS access
to both repositories, and so the (usually) one single person that can do
it often becomes a bottleneck, and has either little time to do the
synchronization, or little time to spend on something else more fun like
actual coding/translating.
And when this has eventually happened, there is actually more damage
than having no implied synchronization at all: downstream translators
think they have translated everything when in reality they have not
since they only have access to an outdated pot file, and upstream
maintainers not getting updated translations to include in their
releases.

We eventually gave up on this approach and refuse to do it anymore. The
empirical results of having tried this many times, and it always failing
with sad results at some time, made us decide that we would never do it
again. Thus, we asked those projects to either move to GNOME CVS, or use
another translation project. Some of those translation projects did move
to GNOME CVS, while some stayed where they were, and either did use
another translation project (like the Translation Project), or didn't
manage their translations in a translation project at all, with the
expected drawbacks of that.


> > > Now, we *have* seriously considered switching how we manage source code,
> > > but I think the general concensus is that we want to move *away* from
> > > CVS to something like Subversion, that would give us more powerful code
> > > management.  Our hope is that SourceForge will eventually implement
> > > this, although since SF seems to be taking a long time to get this, I
> > > think we'd consider other Subversion providers.
> >
> > GNOME is currently considering a switch to a replacement for CVS. It's
> > being discussed on the gnome-hackers list
> > (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/). Subversion and Arch
> > seems (according to my analysis of the threads) to be the main
> > contenders, although Subversion seems to be the favorite since it has
> > the benefit of being more close to how CVS works.
>
> Interesting, well like I said, if GNOME were to provide Subversion,
> Inkscape would be very interested in switching to it.  Maybe this would
> be the best way to go?  Fwiw, we'd be willing to be beta-testers for the
> service if it were available.

Nothing is actually decided yet, and it is a sensitive decision that
must be handled by the community. However, I think most contributors are
supporting a change. The "only" thing that remains is making a formal
community decision, deciding what solution we want to move to.
Furthermore, key contributors have testified that they want to make sure
a decision actually gets made, so that a change can actually happen.

But I don't see this as a reason not to switch now. The current
situation is no worse than what you have right now, and there will be a
change for something better in the future.


> > > Anyway, you may be right that it would make things more convenient for
> > > the GNOME translators, and it's possible that would gain us more
> > > translations.  On the other hand, it risks making it more difficult for
> > > new developers to get CVS accounts, would take a lot of effort to migrate,
> >
> > As for making sure CVS repository files get imported and making sure
> > accounts get arranged, I promise that I'll help out as much as I can.
> >
> > If you don't trust my word for it, please ask other people who maintain
> > software in cvs.gnome.org, and what their experiences are on getting CVS
> > accounts arranged for the last year or so. :)
>
> We have over 30 users with CVS access - what would be the process of
> getting them access?  Would each of them have to re-apply for access, or
> could it be done magically in bulk?

The account details that are needed for gnome.org accounts are at
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/policies/accounts/requesting.html, and
the mail address to send the details to is [hidden email].
You can send all account requests at once in a single mail with all the
details, but they have to be resolved sequentually, one by one. Of
course, we would try to make that happen as soon as possible and as
swift as possible. Also, please limit the amount of account requests to
only active contributors (are all 30 active contributors?).


Christian



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.  How far can you shotput
a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.  
Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

MenTaLguY
In reply to this post by Bryce Harrington
On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 22:44, Bryce Harrington wrote:

> We have over 30 users with CVS access - what would be the process of
> getting them access?  Would each of them have to re-apply for access, or
> could it be done magically in bulk?

One important question is whether switching to GNOME CVS would crimp our
(relative to most projects, anyway) open-access CVS policy?

-mental

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

Lucas Vieites
In reply to this post by Bryce Harrington
  Just as Lucas Bruno says in his post to this same thread, I also do
some Gnome translations and don't have any trouble with CVS access. The
spanish GNOME team is coordinated by one person (or more, not really
sure) that does the revision and commits packages to the CVS. The only
missing part in the Inkscape translation process is the revision part,
but I can't say it would be possible for someone to send a translation
hat would overwrite mine because Arpad always assures that the new
translator gets in touch with the old one.

  By the way, I do the spanish translation of Inkscape GUI. ;)

El sáb, 04-06-2005 a las 19:44 -0700, Bryce Harrington escribió:

> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 03:33:19AM +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
> > You're right, it's certainly not 115 very active teams, even though
> > almost all of them are active to some degree.
> > Anyway, when I browsed through the Inkscape po files I found that many
> > of them essentially dated back to the Sodipodi days, so while Inkscape
> > certainly hasn't a big shortage on translations, it seems the situation
> > hasn't been as improving as it could have been doing during the time.
>
> This is true; also the number of translated languages hasn't increased
> for a very long time.
>
> Judging from http://l10n-status.gnome.org/gnome-2.12/index.html, GNOME
> has 52 languages that have translation ratios over 50%.  Do you think
> that would be a reasonable estimate for the number of translations
> Inkscape could expect to have if it were to tap into this resource?
>
> > > Translation looks to be pretty simple - for a given language there is
> > > just one file to update.  Certainly that file is important, but
> > > important enough to warrant changing CVS?  I guess I'm unclear on
> > > particularly why GNOME CVS makes translation so much easier?
> >
> > I guess I failed to communicate the most important issue here. That
> > issue is:
> >
> > * Since you're essentially doing your sort of own translation
> > project with Inkscape, how do you solve issues of translation
> > quality control and peer review?
> >
> > In other words, what would stop someone else from submitting a poorer
> > Swedish Inkscape translation and having it committed, just weeks after I
> > sent in mine? Do you keep track of your translations and who translates
> > into what language? Do you ask people to confirm that they are ok with
> > translations? Do you ask multiple volunteers for any language to get in
> > contact with each other and sort issues out themselves, or do you just
> > hope that any latest translation sent in by anyone is the one to commit,
> > and hope that any issues will be caught by end users after the next
> > Inkscape release?
>
> These are all good questions, can you explain how the GNOME translation
> project handles these things?  (I didn't see them explicitly explained
> on the URL you gave.)
>
> Note that the Inkscape Translation team does much more than just
> translate the software.  They also do great work at translating the SVG
> tutorials and the Inkscape Manual.
>
> > Since Inkscape has previous connections to GNOME (using some GNOME
> > technologies, following the HIG, etc.) I thought that using the GNOME
> > Translation Project would be the best choice. However, using the GNOME
> > Translation Project requires that the software be in GNOME CVS. It's
> > simply not feasible for us to educate hundreds of translators how to
> > update a translation in a completely different CVS repository, make them
> > have access to that different CVS, and adopt all our automatic tools
> > (like the translation status pages at http://l10n-status.gnome.org/) to
> > work with that different CVS as well.
>
> What ways exist that would allow your team to do the translations in
> GNOME CVS without requiring the entire Inkscape project to change CVS
> systems?  Even an approach that was partly manual or otherwise imperfect
> might at least allow your team to improve Inkscape's state of
> translation.
>
> Do the translators only work on the .po files, or do they make
> modifications to files in the codebase itself (e.g. to adjust the
> original strings)?
>
> > > Now, we *have* seriously considered switching how we manage source code,
> > > but I think the general concensus is that we want to move *away* from
> > > CVS to something like Subversion, that would give us more powerful code
> > > management.  Our hope is that SourceForge will eventually implement
> > > this, although since SF seems to be taking a long time to get this, I
> > > think we'd consider other Subversion providers.
> >
> > GNOME is currently considering a switch to a replacement for CVS. It's
> > being discussed on the gnome-hackers list
> > (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/). Subversion and Arch
> > seems (according to my analysis of the threads) to be the main
> > contenders, although Subversion seems to be the favorite since it has
> > the benefit of being more close to how CVS works.
>
> Interesting, well like I said, if GNOME were to provide Subversion,
> Inkscape would be very interested in switching to it.  Maybe this would
> be the best way to go?  Fwiw, we'd be willing to be beta-testers for the
> service if it were available.
>
> > > Anyway, you may be right that it would make things more convenient for
> > > the GNOME translators, and it's possible that would gain us more
> > > translations.  On the other hand, it risks making it more difficult for
> > > new developers to get CVS accounts, would take a lot of effort to migrate,
> >
> > As for making sure CVS repository files get imported and making sure
> > accounts get arranged, I promise that I'll help out as much as I can.
> >
> > If you don't trust my word for it, please ask other people who maintain
> > software in cvs.gnome.org, and what their experiences are on getting CVS
> > accounts arranged for the last year or so. :)
>
> We have over 30 users with CVS access - what would be the process of
> getting them access?  Would each of them have to re-apply for access, or
> could it be done magically in bulk?
>
> Bryce
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.  How far can you shotput
> a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
> If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.  
> Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
> _______________________________________________
> Inkscape-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
--
Lucas Vieites Fariña
Dept. Desarrollo <[hidden email]>
Asix Informática <http://www.asixinformatica.com/>
Blog <http://www.asixinformatica.com/blog>
Tel/Fax: +34 986 54 26 98



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.  How far can you shotput
a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.
Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r 
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

Bryce Harrington
In reply to this post by Christian Rose-2
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Christian Rose wrote:

> l?r 2005-06-04 klockan 19:44 -0700 skrev Bryce Harrington:
> > Judging from http://l10n-status.gnome.org/gnome-2.12/index.html, GNOME
> > has 52 languages that have translation ratios over 50%.
>
> ...Sodipodi in GNOME CVS currently has translations into 41 languages,
> whereas Inkscape has 33. Since I think Inkscape has become much more
> wellknown than Sodipodi, I think an estimation of about 50 languages can
> certainly be reasonable, given some time of course.
>
> Essentially it is up to the teams to decide how they organize their
> work. The first one that volunteers for translating into a particular
> language gets to do that, and may become the coordinator for that
> language if he or she does want that. Then we direct all further
> volunteers for that language to get in contact with their coordinator
> first -- we do not accept any translations without approval from the
> coordinator for the affected language. This may sound harsh, but it
> helps build up teams and get volunteers to cooperate in their teams, and
> encourages some sort of peer review.
>
> ...
> From your description, it sounds like you are asking whether there would
> be some way for us to synchronize po files with Inkscape, and
> incorporating Inkscape into the GNOME Translation Project, without
> Inkscape actually moving to GNOME CVS. The answer is simple: no.
> The more verbose explanation for this is that we've tried this many
> times in the past...

It sounds like a very effective process.  The GNOME Translation Project
appears to do very good work, and it looks like Inkscape could
potentially pick up perhaps 20 more language translations.  I would
really like to find a way to work together, because it sounds like it
would be in all of our benefit.

I spoke with several of the Inkscape developers, and unfortunately it
seems there is not much interest in switching CVS providers.  There
would be strong interest in switching to a Gnome Subversion, though, if
it becomes available.  If we go through the process of changing
sourcecode management systems, we'd like to do it just once, and going
from CVS to CVS doesn't seem worth the trouble, even if it would
eventually gain some more translators.

It sounds like many of our translators participate in both Inkscape and
GTP already, so perhaps if having increased translations for Inkscape is
important, in the interim before Subversion becomes available, you could
make other translators aware of the need, and they could also choose to
participate on a case by case basis if they wish.

> Nothing is actually decided yet, and it is a sensitive decision that
> must be handled by the community. However, I think most contributors are
> supporting a change. The "only" thing that remains is making a formal
> community decision, deciding what solution we want to move to.
> Furthermore, key contributors have testified that they want to make sure
> a decision actually gets made, so that a change can actually happen.

Would you mind communicating Inkscape's interest in participating in
this, if a decision is made and implemented?  Also, if you could keep us
informed of its progress that would probably help a lot.

> But I don't see this as a reason not to switch now. The current
> situation is no worse than what you have right now, and there will be a
> change for something better in the future.

Well, keep in mind that a change would be disruptive, impose new risks,
and would take time and effort to go through.  I'm not sure how we'd
preserve CVS history.  It sounds like we'd lose some ability to ensure
people get CVS access quickly.  Developers would also have to redo their
local trees and branches, to make them point at the new CVS.  We don't
know about the performance / stability of the Gnome CVS (we had problems
with SourceForge early on, but things are much better today).  We'd have
to revise cron jobs and scripts that currently work on the SF CVS.  We
have some tools like our document generator that run on the SF web
server, which can *only* access SF CVS, that we'd have to either rewrite
or lose.

So you can see that switching to Gnome CVS would impose transition
costs.  Since we'll have to do all this work anyway when we move to
Subversion, I think the general feeling is, why do this work twice, if
we can simply wait until Subversion becomes available?

Bryce


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.  How far can you shotput
a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.  
Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

Christian Rose-2
In reply to this post by MenTaLguY
sön 2005-06-05 klockan 21:42 -0400 skrev MenTaLguY:
> On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 22:44, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>
> > We have over 30 users with CVS access - what would be the process of
> > getting them access?  Would each of them have to re-apply for access, or
> > could it be done magically in bulk?
>
> One important question is whether switching to GNOME CVS would crimp our
> (relative to most projects, anyway) open-access CVS policy?

"Open-access" in what way? Are people getting CVS commit access just by
asking, and without prior contribution? Or do you mean that they, after
five years of continous substantial contributions to the project, don't
have to sell one of their kidnies as well to gain access? ;-)

The requirements for getting a GNOME CVS account is basically that you
must have your maintainer's approval, and that you can be trusted and
really are in need of a CVS account (which again is why the maintainer
needs to confirm it).


Christian



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.  How far can you shotput
a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.  
Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

Christian Rose-2
In reply to this post by Bryce Harrington
mån 2005-06-06 klockan 15:04 -0700 skrev Bryce Harrington:

> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:55:28PM +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
> > l?r 2005-06-04 klockan 19:44 -0700 skrev Bryce Harrington:
> > > Judging from http://l10n-status.gnome.org/gnome-2.12/index.html, GNOME
> > > has 52 languages that have translation ratios over 50%.
> >
> > ...Sodipodi in GNOME CVS currently has translations into 41 languages,
> > whereas Inkscape has 33. Since I think Inkscape has become much more
> > wellknown than Sodipodi, I think an estimation of about 50 languages can
> > certainly be reasonable, given some time of course.
> >
> > Essentially it is up to the teams to decide how they organize their
> > work. The first one that volunteers for translating into a particular
> > language gets to do that, and may become the coordinator for that
> > language if he or she does want that. Then we direct all further
> > volunteers for that language to get in contact with their coordinator
> > first -- we do not accept any translations without approval from the
> > coordinator for the affected language. This may sound harsh, but it
> > helps build up teams and get volunteers to cooperate in their teams, and
> > encourages some sort of peer review.
> >
> > ...
> > From your description, it sounds like you are asking whether there would
> > be some way for us to synchronize po files with Inkscape, and
> > incorporating Inkscape into the GNOME Translation Project, without
> > Inkscape actually moving to GNOME CVS. The answer is simple: no.
> > The more verbose explanation for this is that we've tried this many
> > times in the past...
>
> It sounds like a very effective process.  The GNOME Translation Project
> appears to do very good work, and it looks like Inkscape could
> potentially pick up perhaps 20 more language translations.  I would
> really like to find a way to work together, because it sounds like it
> would be in all of our benefit.
>
> I spoke with several of the Inkscape developers, and unfortunately it
> seems there is not much interest in switching CVS providers.  There
> would be strong interest in switching to a Gnome Subversion, though, if
> it becomes available.  If we go through the process of changing
> sourcecode management systems, we'd like to do it just once, and going
> from CVS to CVS doesn't seem worth the trouble, even if it would
> eventually gain some more translators.

OK, it sounds like you've made up your mind now about this issue. I
won't argue with that, just clear up some points raised below.


> It sounds like many of our translators participate in both Inkscape and
> GTP already, so perhaps if having increased translations for Inkscape is
> important, in the interim before Subversion becomes available, you could
> make other translators aware of the need, and they could also choose to
> participate on a case by case basis if they wish.

...or we could wait until Inkscape finally has ended up in the GNOME
repository, when the issue will automatically be solved. ;)


> > Nothing is actually decided yet, and it is a sensitive decision that
> > must be handled by the community. However, I think most contributors are
> > supporting a change. The "only" thing that remains is making a formal
> > community decision, deciding what solution we want to move to.
> > Furthermore, key contributors have testified that they want to make sure
> > a decision actually gets made, so that a change can actually happen.
>
> Would you mind communicating Inkscape's interest in participating in
> this, if a decision is made and implemented?  Also, if you could keep us
> informed of its progress that would probably help a lot.

Feel free to let the [hidden email] list know that you would be
willing to move to the GNOME repository, if it would be using
Subversion. That's certainly relevant input to confirm that there
actually needs to be a change.

gnome-hackers is a special list in the sense that it is a strictly
moderated list, in order to reduce the amount of traffic and make sure
that only relevant mails get through. It's not open for general
subscription. The archives (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-
hackers/) are open though, and you can get all mails posted to the list
by subscribing to the gnome-hackers-readonly list
(http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers-readonly) if you
want.

That way, you would also be automatically notified when there would be a
repository decision, I suspect.


> > But I don't see this as a reason not to switch now. The current
> > situation is no worse than what you have right now, and there will be a
> > change for something better in the future.
>
> Well, keep in mind that a change would be disruptive, impose new risks,
> and would take time and effort to go through.

True.


> I'm not sure how we'd preserve CVS history.

Oh, that one is simple. You would basically only need to decide on a
date for the transition, hold off commits for a day or so, and then we'd
import http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cvstarballs/inkscape-cvsroot.tar.bz2
(which is regenerated at least daily, I think) into GNOME CVS. That way,
you would get all history preserved.


> It sounds like we'd lose some ability to ensure
> people get CVS access quickly.

Yes, it might take some days to have all accounts done.


> Developers would also have to redo their
> local trees and branches, to make them point at the new CVS.  We don't
> know about the performance / stability of the Gnome CVS (we had problems
> with SourceForge early on, but things are much better today).

We've had no problems or complaints for the last year, at least not for
the master CVS repository. One of the anoncvs mirrors located elsewhere
in the world at one point got out of free disk space though, but that
was quickly resolved when the local admins were notified about the
problem. The other anoncvs mirrors still worked fine though.


> We'd have
> to revise cron jobs and scripts that currently work on the SF CVS.  We
> have some tools like our document generator that run on the SF web
> server, which can *only* access SF CVS, that we'd have to either rewrite
> or lose.

Good point.


> So you can see that switching to Gnome CVS would impose transition
> costs.  Since we'll have to do all this work anyway when we move to
> Subversion, I think the general feeling is, why do this work twice, if
> we can simply wait until Subversion becomes available?

Yeah, yeah, I hear you. I just would have hoped the transition to happen
right now, instead of some (not yet decided) time in the future...

Ok, I'll shut up.


Christian



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.  How far can you shotput
a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.  
Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Using GNOME CVS and Bugzilla?

MenTaLguY
In reply to this post by Christian Rose-2
Quoting Christian Rose <[hidden email]>:

> "Open-access" in what way? Are people getting CVS commit access
> just by asking, and without prior contribution? Or do you mean
> that they, after five years of continous substantial contributions
> to the project, don't have to sell one of their kidnies as well to
> gain access? ;-)

Somewhere in-between.  The rule has been that if we accept two or
three of your patches, you get CVS access (if you want it).  We
don't check IDs or anything.

At this point I'm comfortable with this since the project is small
enough that I can stay on top of the CVS commit mailing list to see
what people are doing (and I'm sure others do as well).

I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable so blithely approving people for
access to GNOME CVS.

-mental


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.  How far can you shotput
a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track?
If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy.
Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r 
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Loading...