Re: Workflows for DL-Transifex co-hosted PO files.

[Andika Triwidada <andika gmail com>]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress gmail com> wrote:
> Gnome i18n folks,
>
> There is something I don't really understand about the preferred
> workflow for modules listed in Damned Lies that are actually hosted on
> external platforms.
>
> Let me cite just one module as an example.
>
> The accountsservice module is listed in Damned Lies
>
> http://l10n.gnome.org/module/accountsservice/
>
> it is in the "freedesktop.org (non-GNOME)" Release Set
>
> It is clearly annotated (and linked) that it's L10n is hosted on an
> external platform, in this case it is hosted at Transifex.
>
> https://www.transifex.com/projects/p/accountsservice/resource/accounts-servicepot/
>
>
> Scenario A:
>
> The project has matching languages present on DL and Transifex (e.g. en_GB).
>
> Obviously, the "right" thing to do is to upstream the PO file to Transifex.
>
> However, what is the "right" thing to do in DL?
>
> Should the PO file be committed to DL?  This would at least update the
> statistics and prevent duplicate effort, but how would conflicts
> between DL and Transifex L10n be handled and resolved?

My understanding is that DL doesn't "receive" commits. DL will only check
registered branch(es) in its local repository that was sync-ed from
external platform.

Problem is, Transifex will not automatically push translation to the module, so
we often see different translation completion level. CMIIW.

Transifex -> commit to main repo -> sync to DL buffer -> stat in DL