Open Stack

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015, at 02:34 PM, Douglas Fish wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi i18n Friends,
> 
> I'm happy to share that we are proceeding with our plan to share our IBM
> translations with the OpenStack community.
> 
> To review and follow up on what was shared in the 2015-08-20 i18n team
> meeting [1]:
> - We would like to contribute our IBM translations for projects
> ceilometer,
> glance, heat, nova, ironic, neutron, cinder, keystone, and swift. Note
> that
> Horizon is not in this list because the community has been focused on
> translating Horizon; I'm concerned there may be excessive terminology
> conflicts.
> - We have translations for de es  fr  it  ja  ko_KR  pt_BR  ru  zh_CN
> zh_TW
> - These contributions are based on our Kilo translations. They have been
> reviewed and tested.
> - In order to facilitate an informal review by the translation teams
> before
> uploading I've made the translations available at
> https://github.com/doug-fish/openstack-translations . The repository is
> private. If you'd like access, just share your github id with me via
> email
> (drfish at us.ibm.com) or IRC (doug-fish) and I'll give you access.
> - Segments that have been updated with IBM translations have a comment
> "Contributed by IBM" added. This is to enable reviewing; I don't expect
> these comments to remain in Zanata after the upload.
> 
> At a high level, our process is that we are extracting the existing PO
> files from Zanata, then using Babel based code to compare our IBM
> translations with the community ones and filling in any blanks. We've
> taken
> care not to overwrite any existing translations.
> 
> These proposed files are based on what we extracted from Zanata recently
> (today). Our intent is to run this tooling again after the review period
> to
> pick up any community translations that have occurred. I'm aware that
> translations for Nova are not updated in Zanata yet, but again, I expect
> to
> handle this by re-running our tools.
> 
> I'm working with Thomas Cocozzello (tjcocozz) and Lucas Palm (lapalm) who
> have coded our tools and scripts to handle this. They are requesting to
> join the language teams in Zanata so that if there are no concerns noted
> during the review they can upload translation contributions.
> 
> I plan to ask Tom and Lucas to upload these files on 2015-09-14 unless
> there are concerns noted during the reviews.
> 
> Please let me know if you have questions or concerns!
> 
> Doug
> 
> 1.
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_i18n/2015/openstack_i18n.2015-08-20-13.03.log.html
> 
> 
> Doug Fish

After reading the meeting log it appears that using a git repo of some
sort to perform easy diffing was the suggested way to go through this
process. My only concern with that is these translations are being
treated in a special manner to the detriment of other contributors that
have to go through the normal translation process in Zanata (and
previously Transifex). At the very least current translators may not
realize that there is a bunch of work done because it is currently
hidden behind a private Github repo.

My suggestion would be to push these translations into Zanata the same
way any other translator would. That communicates to other translators
where to focus both review and translation efforts. And if we need
better diffing abilities that may make for a good feature request to
Zanata? (note this is based on my understanding that translations in
Zanata have to be approved/accepted and I don't think that we should
bypass that process as all other translators have to go through it).

If that is not feasible for practical reasons my suggestion would be to
use Gerrit instead of Github and perform the review in the open. This
way we have record of the reviews and anyone can participate using the
tools already in use for reviewing git changes by OpenStack. You should
be able to push changes to various projects updating their .po(t) files
in order to get the diffs. If you do it atop the current translation
change proposals in Gerrit you should get the correct diffs out of it.

I know I would personally be a lot more comfortable with this if
Andreas' could weigh in on it. Maybe we can get his feedback before
making too many changes? Also, do let me know if the infrastructure team
can do anything to help IBM contribute upstream first so that we can
avoid needing to work through special cases like this in the future. If
there are deficiencies in the system/tooling it would be great to fix
them.

Clark