On 08/01/2013 06:19 PM, Ying Chun Guo wrote:

After we collect those information, we will communicate with Transifex team. Although these requirements/bugs may not be implemented/fixed very quickly, it's a way that we help to improve Transifex, to improve our "working" tools.

I started looking into the available tools to make life of translators easier, too. The fact that the Japanese team translated the operations manual without using Transifex sounded to me like a alarm, especially coupled with the fact that I am confused myself by TX gui. I looked back at the discussion notes from Folsom summit on i18n that lead to start using TX https://etherpad.openstack.org/FolsomI18N and I couldn't find much details about the exact needs of the i18n team, probably because such discussion happened at a very early stage for the team. Now the team has more maturity, probably it's time we assemble a more detailed list of features that *must* be part of the tools used by the i18n team in order to maximize its effectiveness. What are the reasons that lead the Japanese team not to use Transifex? What features are necessary to have all the teams use the same tool? What do people in this team need to do their job in the most effective, pleasant way? /stef -- Ask and answer questions on https://ask.openstack.org