Easing software localization with Transifex [LWN.net]

Easing software localization with Transifex

Posted Mar 26, 2009 8:15 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159)
Parent article: Easing software localization with Transifex

I know this article is about Transifex, but it doesn't help to give an incorrect portrayal of its competitors.

It is true that if a project wants to use Launchpad's translations system, it will need to be registered in Launchpad. It is not true that this implies using Launchpad's code hosting system though. There are a number of projects that use Launchpad for translations but not version control.

At the moment, version control system integration for Launchpad translations is not a strong point, so you aren't at a disadvantage if you host your VCS at a different site.

Saying that "translations tend to get trapped" in Launchpad is a pretty loaded phrase. A project owner can import templates and existing translations using the standard PO file format. They can then export the translations in the same format, with the translations made within Launchpad being BSD licensed (no advertising clause). The translators for the project don't need any special knowledge of either the import or export procedures.

The translations will remain in Launchpad though, since it may suggest those translations for other projects where the same strings have been used. Most people see this as a benefit, and a benefit to using a shared translation system rather than a disadvantage of centralisation. Chances are, some of the translations for your application originated from another project (this is one of the reasons why translations produced within Launchpad are BSD licensed).

Disclosure: I work at Canonical, and was a part of the Launchpad team. This comment represents my own views, rather than being any kind of official statement.

(Log in to post comments)

Easing software localization with Transifex

Posted Mar 26, 2009 12:03 UTC (Thu) by danilo (guest, #57549) [Link]

That's a completely untrue statement. First of, you are talking about Ubuntu translations in Rosetta, not about any translations in Rosetta. Next, if Canonical is to push translations upstream "proactively" (i.e. somebody with no knowledge of all the languages that Rosetta contains translations for would go to hundreds of upstream projects times the number of translation teams, and send them the translations), we'd get even more bad press because we are submitting them the work they are not asking for. We're actively encouraging Ubuntu translators to work with upstreams (and we are providing tools to help with that collaboration), but we simply don't have resources to learn all the languages and have people talk to a thousand different upstream translation teams. Also, Ubuntu will have a dedicated person to work on translator collaboration in the next few days.

The same statements are brought up by Og Maciel in quoted article, where, in the comments, he basically agrees that most of his points are untrue in response to others' comments. It's unfortunate that this article is still being used as a reference to problems in Rosetta, when his comments were outdated by a few years.

Also, Rosetta at this moment is not a competitor to Transifex (which doesn't mean we won't make it so in the future ;). FWIW, we could make Rosetta talk to Transifex for translation submission, and I think that would be a great idea. What Rosetta does provide is a web-based UI for managing translations on a lower-level, requiring even less technical skills on translators' side.

Yes, maintainers have to do some manual work to make it so easy for translators in Launchpad, and that's exactly the step where Transifex shines: helping maintainers set up their translations. I'd argue that it's more of interest to maintainers than to translators (a proper set-up in Launchpad is easier for translators, but harder on maintainers to sync).

I am currently a developer of Launchpad Translations (code named "Rosetta"), but I have also contributed a lot to the free software i18n in the past.

Easing software localization with Transifex

Posted Mar 26, 2009 13:48 UTC (Thu) by omaciel (subscriber, #49553) [Link]

Hi Danilo,

"The same statements are brought up by Og Maciel in quoted article, where, in the comments, he basically agrees that most of his points are untrue in response to others' comments."

I'm sorry Danilo but I believe you misunderstood my comments. What I said was that I had designed a blueprint to try and remedy the disconnect that there is between Ubuntu translations and upstream's.

Last time I checked, even if you don't host your code in Launchpad, you still have to manually upload newer translation catalogs (pot files) in order to "synchronize" the existing translations, which is suboptimal, but I *know* how understaffed you all are and that this will be resolved.

Transifex, in my opinion is a *great* option for those who need to manage their translations but either don't have the resources to handle the requirements or don't want to bother with it. The tool completely abstracts out the underlying "engine" and allows translators to get the job done.

Disclaimer: I do not work for either company or projects here mentioned.

Easing software localization with Transifex

Posted Mar 26, 2009 16:07 UTC (Thu) by danilo (guest, #57549) [Link]

Hi Og, in my reading, you seem to confirm that there is a "disconnect between Ubuntu translations and upstream's", but not necessarily because there's something wrong with Launchpad as a tool. IMO, that's due to social interaction that exists (or doesn't exist) between Ubuntu translators and upstream translators. There is really not much we can do in that particular case. I am not saying Launchpad Translations is perfect, but it's far from being the cause of any problems you mention in the article - today.

As for your second point, uploading a tarball, or downloading one back has so far been a well used interface for project maintainers: if it's working so well for so many projects, I don't understand why do you insist that it's unusable. Translators have had a chance to completely enjoy easy to use interface for translation, and I simply can't see what do you think is harder for translators with Launchpad than with Transifex (actually, I can see that a lot of things are easier for translators).

Now, Transifex is a great tool that helps maintainers with allowing outside contributions from translators. At this time, it beats Launchpad Translations hands-down when it comes to effort a maintainer needs to do to accept outside contributions. But, this is only for maintainers: I see no advantages in the approach for translators.

And, we _are_ working on making this easier for maintainers as well.

But, on some points, we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Cheers,
Danilo

Easing software localization with Transifex

Posted Mar 26, 2009 15:15 UTC (Thu) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link]

First of, you are talking about Ubuntu translations in Rosetta, not about any translations in Rosetta.

I don't know about others, but I certainly mean only translations to upstream software (i.e. stuff that would be useful outside of Ubuntu)...

Next, if Canonical is to push translations upstream "proactively" (i.e. somebody with no knowledge of all the languages that Rosetta contains translations for would go to hundreds of upstream projects times the number of translation teams, and send them the translations), we'd get even more bad press because we are submitting them the work they are not asking for.

You just submit it once, or maybe once every year, with a pointer to a system very much like the one you have for packages derived from Debian, where the upstream maintainer can subscribe to update notices for translations? It is not that hard a problem to solve. In fact, you probably already have something like this.

Then you track the use of this system, and you can produce hard numbers if anyone says translations to upstream material "get lost" inside of Rosetta.

We're actively encouraging Ubuntu translators to work with upstreams (and we are providing tools to help with that collaboration), but we simply don't have resources to learn all the languages and have people talk to a thousand different upstream translation teams.

Fair enough. But that wouldn't make the (maybe unfair) idea that "translations made in Rosetta end up not spreading upstream and to others" any less true, should it be true at all.

Easing software localization with Transifex

Posted Mar 26, 2009 16:26 UTC (Thu) by danilo (guest, #57549) [Link]

Fair enough. But that wouldn't make the (maybe unfair) idea that "translations made in Rosetta end up not spreading upstream and to others" any less true, should it be true at all.

If you modify that statement to say: "translations made in _Ubuntu_ end up not spreading upstream and to others", I might agree. Rosetta is a tool to organize a translation effort. It allows one to keep track of changes between upstream, and also to only download such changes. Ubuntu has had a lot of problems with how their translation effort is organized, but that's being actively worked on, and I am sure will hugely improve in the next few months.

Translations that are eg. done in-house in RedHat and/or SuSE do not go anywhere either (I know they did that in the past, not sure what they do today). They just don't have a public service like Launchpad where such translations are easily accessible and visible to everyone. Openness is sometimes a two-edged sword, but I'd always go for openness and visibility.

And I am not saying that there are not improvements that we can make. But, this has nothing to do with comparing it to Transifex, where Transifex has full control of upstream translations. There are very successful Launchpad examples where projects directly host their translations in Launchpad. They are, naturally, neither outdated nor have any problems with syncing. And after you go past syncing, Transifex is definitely not a competitor to Launchpad Translations (eg. Pootle is much more suitable to be in the same sentence).

Cheers,
Danilo

Easing software localization with Transifex

Posted Mar 27, 2009 1:12 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

"Translations that are eg. done in-house in RedHat and/or SuSE do not go anywhere either (I know they did that in the past, not sure what they do today)."

Red Hat makes a strong effort to push all translations upstream. If you have seen anything that suggests otherwise, do let me know. Grand claims without references aren't very helpful.