Re: Problems commiting damned-lies package
- From: Kukuh Syafaat <syafaatkukuh gmail com>
- To: gnome-i18n gnome org
- Subject: Re: Problems commiting damned-lies package
- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 21:59:19 +0700
Speaking about Weblate, please consider back to this thread [1].
My question still not answered yet [2].
Regards
I think WebLate would be a good pick. It has a glossary function too,
which teams will find handy to help with terminology consistency. And
you can download the files to translate too, in a long list of formats
of your choice. And it has some QA checks too, like punctuation, printf
placeholders etc.
I only tried to translate a project once on Zanata and found the
experience frustrating enough that I decided to go off and translate
something else.
And while I have become pretty skilled in using Git for programming work
and I love how powerful it is, I don't want to use Git directly while
translating.
IMO the optimum workflow would be to pull weblate translations with a
scheduled GitLab CI job and let the CI commit them into a branch when
they're green. The master branch should be protected and nobody should
be allowed to push there directly. Even skilled and experienced project
maintainers will make mistakes, because nobody is perfect.
Sgrìobh Carlos Soriano na leanas 22/06/2020 aig 13:47:
> Hey Daniel,
>
> First of all, I want to say that I see your POV, and you cannot change
> the whole thing by yourself and I'm glad you are pushing to address
> these translators' pain points in your time. I do agree on the technical
> side with Emannuelle, but I also understand it's not something that will
> happen unless some developer with the right skillset invests the time to
> do it, and that might be harder to find on the gnome-i18n group.
>
> I believe the issue is limited to certain groups, since you have access
> already for the GNOME group right? If so, it's a bit tricky, as those
> projects are not necessarily fully tied to GNOME. We don't support them
> in the same way we support the GNOME group, that is by design and as a
> result of having a more open infrastructure than we had before - now
> everyone can create their own personal project in GNOME's GitLab, even
> if they don't have commit rights to GNOME projects.
>
> Now, I don't see why we wouldn't make it easy for translators of GNOME
> to provide translations in other projects in our infra if desired, as
> long as we make the difference between GNOME projects and the rest clear
> in DL. We also have to acknowledge that certain projects might want to
> handle their permissions and workflow differently - they might block the
> master branch to anyone but maintainers. It's a reality that MR + CI is
> becoming the de facto approach, and the longer we take to transition to
> something else, the more painful is going to be for gnome-i18n.
>
> For a possible short term solution, could you file a GitLab ticket
> at https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/GitLab detailing which groups
> or projects you would like to have access to, and the requirements and
> use cases that the gnome-i18n has for having commit right access? That
> way, it is not blocked on me or our own private communication.
>
> As a long term solution, did gnome-i18n investigate if there are other
> tools available (Zanata, WebLate, etc.) that would fit what we need
> here? I understand DL was created with certain features and workflows
> that fit well GNOME, but I have the feeling times are changing faster
> than we can adapt and we cannot find the developer resources to do so.
> Adopting one of those external tools might open new possibilities
> too, and bring a new type of contributors.
>
> Let me know if you have any other comments.
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 13:29, Daniel Mustieles García
> <daniel mustieles gmail com <mailto:daniel mustieles gmail com>> wrote:
>
> Again this is David against Goliat, and I'm tired of fighting...
>
> I have no skills to improve DL, I only developed a script and made
> it available to everyone who wants use/read/whatever with it. If if
> can be a start point to improve DL great! but I'm not going to keep
> fighting against something that I cannot change.
>
> I don't know which features Gitlab offers, sorry if I still think
> like in 2009. Maybe someone with better knowledge than me could show
> us the proper way or even help with a tool or a patch for DL. I made
> a bash script because I don't know Python. I'm a translator, not a
> developer, sorry.
>
> I'm leaving here the discussion/thread, but thanks for your comments
> and your point of view.
>
> Regards
>
> El lun., 22 jun. 2020 a las 13:13, Emmanuele Bassi
> (<ebassi gmail com <mailto:ebassi gmail com>>) escribió:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 11:44, Daniel Mustieles García
> <daniel mustieles gmail com <mailto:daniel mustieles gmail com>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Emmanuele,
>
> Just a quick question: which is the difference between
> commiting directly into Git and commiting through DL?
>
>
> DL can, at least, centralise the place where tests are executed
> to ensure that things don't utterly break. Of course, it's not
> really a solution: now that we use GitLab, we already have a
> centralised place to run builds and tests.
>
> The fact that DL pushes to the main development branch *also*
> irks me to no end; at least DL acts as a filter, and ensures
> that *some* validation is actually performed.
>
>
> PO file checks are the same (or should be), so commiting
> directly is not more dangerous than using DL. the same
> checks DL makes into a PO file are done in my script, for
> example. If a PO file breaks your module's building it
> doesn't matter if I committed it directly into git or usind DL.
>
>
> Your script is your own script. Unless everybody uses your
> script—in which case, it should be moved to a remote environment
> so that people don't have to have Git access—then it's pointless.
>
> But my point is that I don't want translators to have "scripts".
> I don't want translators to do anything more than translating.
> We have infrastructure to verify that things pushed to the
> repository do not break the main development branch of a
> project: it's called the continuous integration pipeline, and we
> have a process for it to run on topic branches. We even have API
> in GitLab to:
>
> - automatically create a merge request
> - set the target branch
> - automatically merge code once the CI pipeline passes
> - automatically remove the source branch when merged
>
> when pushing to the remote repository:
> https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/push_options.html
>
> I do hope your script uses it. I'd hope for DL to do the same.
>
>
> Also, note that not all translators will have commit rights:
> only a reduced group of them. Breaking things in git is
> possible for both translators and developers: that's one of
> the reasons we use Git, to be able to revert commits and
> even revoke commit access to a person who breaks things
> several times.
>
>
> I don't want to manually revert stuff that's broken and got
> pushed to the main development branch. I don't want broken stuff
> to land *in the first place*.
>
> Git having easy revert operations is good for things that are
> *discovered* to be broken later on; that doesn't mean people
> should push broken localisations of the application
> documentation, with broken tags that do not close properly, and
> get only discovered when trying to release something. That's
> sacrificing maintenance time—*my* time—because you want to save
> your time. Your time isn't any more precious than mine.
>
> Additionally, we have whole run times that get built every day;
> if a translation breaks a library, or an application, the whole
> pipeline gets stalled until the problem is solved. The amount of
> lost person time is staggering.
>
> This is not a question of being 20 years o 20 days in the
> project: this is a question of helping us with our work,
> because that work is as valid as yours, and we all are
> responsible with it. pre-commit hooks can be implemented
> (they are already, but we could study if are enough or not)
> to avoid breaking things, but its really discouraging to
> follow DL's workflow to commit a 1-modified string in a PO
> file. Multiply it by 20...
>
>
> If people spent time improving Damned Lies instead of working
> around it with their own scripts, we would probably have a
> better tool already.
>
> Or, maybe, a better tool already exists, and we should move to it.
>
> In any case, my point is that even people that can commit to Git
> *should not* push to the main development branch. *Ever*. The
> mere fact that you reference "commit hooks" makes me think
> you're basically thinking that we're using Git by itself, like
> this is still 2009. We don't. We switched to GitLab because it
> offers us a lot more tools that "hooks". We have CI pipelines
> that run on branches; merge requests; an entire API to construct
> tools on top of our infrastructure.
>
> We don't want special snowflakes, we just want to be able to
> do our work in the best way.
>
>
> Your "best way" has a high chance to make me waste my time, when
> we have perfectly functional tools to avoid that.
>
> I'm grateful for the work done by localisation teams; lowering
> the bar of contribution makes it better for everyone, but that
> should never come at the cost of the stability of the platform.
>
> The solution to making GNOME software better is not to make
> everyone expert developers, but to make sure our infrastructure
> is automated and safe to contribute to—and "safe" doesn't mean
> "I can revert broken stuff after the fact". That principle has
> been one of the driving force of a lot of the changes in our
> infrastructure over the years.
>
> Ciao,
> Emmanuele.
>
> Regards
>
> El lun., 22 jun. 2020 a las 12:30, Emmanuele Bassi
> (<ebassi gmail com <mailto:ebassi gmail com>>) escribió:
>
> Hi;
>
> to be brutally honest, as a maintainer I don't want any
> translator to commit directly to Git—unless it's done to
> a separate branch and/or through merge requests.
>
> Translators do not build the projects they translate,
> and they don't (or cannot) know when they break things.
> The only way maintainers know that a broken translation
> happened is that suddenly the CI mails us, and then we
> have to hunt down what happened behind out backs. This
> is even worse when you realise something has broken a
> long time ago because the release process is now impossible.
>
> I'd rather have an automated, web UI tool that pushed
> changes to a branch and opened a merge request that ran
> the CI pipeline (and maybe the dist process), than
> allowing translators to commit to Git directly. I don't
> really care if some translator is an old hand that was
> around when GNOME used CVS and scripted their way to
> push to dozens of repositories at once; we started using
> a lot of tooling to ensure things don't break, and even
> developers have started pushing things to development
> branches instead of committing directly to master. I
> don't see why translators have to be the special
> snowflakes of the whole GNOME project, and break stuff
> for everyone else just because of their 20 years old
> workflow.
>
> Ciao,
> Emmanuele.
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 11:03, Daniel Mustieles García
> via gnome-i18n <gnome-i18n gnome org
> <mailto:gnome-i18n gnome org>> wrote:
>
> Some time ago I talked about this with +Carlos
> Soriano <mailto:csoriano gnome org> . I asked him
> about the possibility of creating a user's group in
> Gitlab, formed by some team coordinators, which will
> have commit rights to be able to commit a bunch of
> translations due to the heavy clickwork must be done
> in DL. Still waiting...
>
> Me (and some other team coordinators) got Git access
> before migration to Gitlab, and it was not a
> problem. Having such rights will help us a lot to be
> more agile maintaining and commiting translations.
> Yes, I currently have those rights and can use an
> automated script [1] to ease my life, but I don't
> have commit rights in some new modules
> (app-icon-preview, shortwave...). I'd like to
> formerly request this feature/rigths. If we found
> any problem with a wrong commit or something like
> that is quick and easy to revert that commit; if a
> user with rights uses them for other things that
> translations is quick and easy to revoke those
> privileges. Advantages for us to maintain and keep
> translations up-to-date are huge.
>
> Please consider this request and let's work together
> to make it possible in the best way.
>
> Best regards.
>
> [1]https://github.com/dmustieles/gnome_scripts/blob/master/gttk.sh
>
> El dom., 21 jun. 2020 a las 20:43, Matej Urban via
> gnome-i18n (<gnome-i18n gnome org
> <mailto:gnome-i18n gnome org>>) escribió:
>
> Hello,
> some time ago I complained about inability to
> commit damned-lies package due to wrong access
> rights. Ok, I can live with that, but lately I
> get this error on many, many packages,
> especially new ones, like:
>
> app-icon-preview, authenticator, fractal,
> fragments, gnome-keysign, obfuscate, shortwave
> ... list goes on
>
> Is there any special reason why not even
> coordinators are able to do that the usual way?
> Yes, I know, there is another way to do it, but
> it is cumbersome and takes a lot, lot, lot time
> to do it and what is more important, each
> project has some specifics. For this reasons I
> do not push these ...
>
> Please advise or better, please bend at least
> for coordinators these rules.
>
> Thank you,
> Matej
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-i18n mailing list
> gnome-i18n gnome org <mailto:gnome-i18n gnome org>
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-i18n mailing list
> gnome-i18n gnome org <mailto:gnome-i18n gnome org>
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
>
>
>
> --
> https://www.bassi.io
> [@] ebassi [@gmail.com <http://gmail.com>]
>
>
>
> --
> https://www.bassi.io
> [@] ebassi [@gmail.com <http://gmail.com>]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-i18n mailing list
> gnome-i18n gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
>
_______________________________________________
gnome-i18n mailing list
gnome-i18n gnome org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
--
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]
