I moved this patch to GitLab: https://invent.kde.org/sdk/lokalize/-/merge_requests/60

autocorrect moved to calligra were at least it's being used https://invent.kde.org/office/calligra/commit/c6c6c899a3b640555df551d96d0668bb16ae0042

ktuberling https://invent.kde.org/games/ktuberling/commit/63fe5cb74b47e7a1a299ab11cd910cea5013c7f6

khangman did not have any kvtml file

https://websvn.kde.org/trunk/l10n-kf5/nn/data/khangman/khangman/?pathrev=1605218

@aacid, I see that khangman is marked as ‘done’, but I can’t find the .kvtml files (e.g., for language ‘nn’) in the khangman Git repository. Only the .txt file containing the list of extra characters in the alphabet has been added. Are the .kvtml files stored somewhere else?

https://invent.kde.org/education/kstars/-/merge_requests/763

lokalize https://invent.kde.org/sdk/lokalize/-/merge_requests/23

klettres https://invent.kde.org/education/klettres/-/merge_requests/11

kdeedu-data https://invent.kde.org/education/kdeedu-data/-/merge_requests/4

Thanks for opening that request against Lokalize to plug into Weblate's existing API. A workflow that uses Weblate to remove the need to deal with git/svn to encourage contributions from non-Computer Science types while still allowing for those who have used Lokalize to continue using Lokalize is the best way forward I feel.

I agree it could be a good solution but I'm looking at it from a different angle.

Online tools generally slow down high-volume translators. Plus, they are slow, and require an internet connection. Downloading and uploading translations are always a hassle, and error-prone.

Would someone (@ltoscano ?) be able to give a short status update on this at Akademy? Where discussion/work/testing is required?

Last activity here was a year ago, has there been any further thoughts or updates on this?

autocorrect is a PAIN because it's used by both pimcommon and calligra, so were do we put it? Currently we're not putting it anywhere so it's not being even used ^_^

khangman at https://invent.kde.org/education/khangman/-/merge_requests/12

I've removed the kturtle data, it was all for a very old version of kturtle, the new version of kturtle doesn't support those data files

@cblack Thank you so much, it was a kind offer but I don't want to increase the amount of workload on you. Thank you!
@aacid We can try and make some automation for approved strings but I can't estimate the effort required for SVN.

Well, this tangent is kinda moot now since some chatting & it's probably not going to work out having Hebrew team work on the instance I set up for the Toki Pona team.

That's probably acceptable but I am going to maybe wrongly assume you don't also speak Hebrew?

I'm going to warn you against that, you can't create a system to automatically commit things from other people into KDE servers without human interaction, that's basically giving out your user for anyone else to [ab]use, and that's obviously not allowed.

@aacid That's maybe relevant to pootle, in Weblate there's an ACL and a string approval system.

I'm going to warn you against that, you can't create a system to automatically commit things from other people into KDE servers without human interaction, that's basically giving out your user for anyone else to [ab]use, and that's obviously not allowed.

Could we chat on a more real-time platform to hash out the details of that? My matrix is @pontaoski:kde.org and Telegram is https://t.me/pontaoski

@cblack Yes, I'd love that.

You want to use the Weblate instance set up for the Toki Poka team for the Hebrew localisation?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

@cblack What will it take to simply join them?

@cblack What will it take to simply join them?

Another data point: the toki pona team uses a Weblate instance working directly against the SVN. Works fine, other than the fiddling of the internal checkout Weblate uses required to prevent it from dying on how many files we have in its "scanning" phase.

The website has been refreshed and is ready to be extracted by Scripty.

In T13514#248309, @aspotashev wrote:

Btw I've started slowly rewriting scripty in Go because

• I like Go more than bash.
• It's easier to make it more configurable than in the current state with a set of scripts calling each other. We need configurability to share codebase across branches and to let users run parts of scripty end-to-end (will be useful for www that needs more frequent syncs).
• it's easier to parallelize things in Go, so we could shorten the running time.
  
  I didn't share my code yet. Don't expect fast progress, maybe I'll be able to release something by May 2021.

Just in case, this is the thing I'm working on, but it's still heavily WIP, especially the injector interface (something is already working with the example legacy extractor):
https://invent.kde.org/ltoscano/noktra/

Done! (trunk r1592930, branch r1592931)

That's also an option, simply remove the need for it 👍

The original solution with srDataMacros was appropriate for the time of single language packs, but in this case (where various maintainers would have to deal with it directly, even if in ecm) I think it would cause too much confusion.

The only way i can think of is, make it more generic, make it not use perl and move it to ecm

In T13618#240765, @aacid wrote:

kdeedu-data ktuberling khangman are blocked by sr magicly shared cmake file cmake_modules/srDataMacros.cmake

Any idea how to proceed with it?

I guess we need to continue with this. I was told LFS works on our repositories, so at least we could resume this when there are no other blockers.

@huftis @aspotashev There are too many involved parameters, you can't measure performance like that.

In T13514#248310, @ltoscano wrote:

Please note I'm working on base replacement in python too.
The idea is to have something modular (starting from an independent translation extraction application which may be used elsewhere). I plan to share something before that deadline.

A binary is not going to help much, as most of the time is going to spend on I/O on the disk, in my experience.

In T13514#248308, @aspotashev wrote:

Another problem with SVN is, it's slow. It sometimes takes at least 10 minutes to "svn cleanup" + "svn up" when only the translations from branches trunk/kf5 and stable/kf5 are checked out, making the full run of scripty slow on my laptop (note: I don't use SSD, that might be the reason).

Please note I'm working on base replacement in python too.
The idea is to have something modular (starting from an independent translation extraction application which may be used elsewhere). I plan to share something before that deadline.

Btw I've started slowly rewriting scripty in Go because

• I like Go more than bash.
• It's easier to make it more configurable than in the current state with a set of scripts calling each other. We need configurability to share codebase across branches and to let users run parts of scripty end-to-end (will be useful for www that needs more frequent syncs).
• it's easier to parallelize things in Go, so we could shorten the running time.

In T13514#237699, @aacid wrote:

"Git should facilitate integration with external translation file trees maintained by Linux distributions (e.g. BaseALT)"
Let me rephrase this for you: "We're doing things wrong, can you please change your upstream behaviour so it's less painful for us to do things wrong?"

In T11070#247390, @ltoscano wrote:

Translations in the repositories would make the life of people who touches several repositories almost impossible, so it's out of the question.
The solution is to make weblate work with a structure which fits us (either svn or per-language git repositories).

In T11070#247315, @sanecito wrote:

Translations in the repositories would make the life of people who touches several repositories almost impossible, so it's out of the question.
The solution is to make weblate work with a structure which fits us (either svn or per-language git repositories).

So I just tried to import all the summit translations to a local weblate instance (using docker). Unfortunately, the import failed after an hour with a timeout. Also, there are no native svn supports, it is just using git-svn. It looks like weblate is not optimized to handle big projects like KDE for now or at least not in a 16GB RAM/i7 CPU laptop. Also, the import was single-threaded :(

Migration to Git is over, abandoning this patch.

I think that switching to Weblate would cause more harm than good due to:

1. slower performance
2. hit-and-run" translators

@yaron
I think it's good idea.

Why not integrating Lokalize with Weblate? There's a great API and you can choose what to load, possibly having some background worker to prefetch and sync the strings, glossary, suggestions, optional screenshots to speed things up, TM, etc.

In T11070#238105, @yurchor wrote:

In T11070#238104, @dkazakov wrote:

Hi, @yurchor!

Could you please explain your total opposition to having Weblate as another source of translations?

Because I've used it for several years.

I think that we do not need "another source of translations". With Weblate/Transifex/whatever you will soon find that the team coordinator is gone, or do not want to approve your translations, or you do not want to approve somebody's translations. The problem was not with tools (again). One more tool just makes the current life harder. Just look at this thread. All the problems can be solved with better team management.

You are constantly saying that "the performance will be much lower", but noone in this thread says about forbidding direct pushes into svn/gitlab repository with translations.

No. Quite opposite. They say that it is hard/should be cut off/left for the "power" users.

More than that, @sanecito has just confirmed that one can lock the file in Weblate and work with it in his/her own way. Why can't you just lock the file in Weblate and go translating it in Lokalize?

Why should I lock it first?

Just an example. Today we have ~40 new strings in ~10 catalogs. I should go and find one of ~1000 KDE catalogs and lock it. ~5 mins of my time gone for nothing. I guess that overall probability that nobody wants to translate something is about 99.99%.

Another example. XX locked the catalog and gone. Who will unlock it for an abandoned language?

These locks are of no good for anybody except scripty or developers.

With such workflow Weblate will just work as a "translations coordinator", which distributes jobs among people. Where do I get it wrong?

Everywhere. First, most of the complaints are from people who do not want the distribution of jobs. They just want to change something and vanish.

Second, we are speaking about teams with 2-3 active translators (most KDE teams). "Coordination" in such teams is rather simplistic. You just translate, translate, and translate. Once in several months comes a guy/girl with a new translation which you have to review. Once a year, you have a correct bug report about a mistake in translation.

Almost all Weblate features are unusable in such a workflow. You just want to get rid of any coordination and go Launchpad/Rosetta way (or Transifex way like it is for MATE or Deepin), to be honest.

Excellent! Thank you for all the effort!

I'm really sorry for the delay, and thanks for the help!

ping?

I'm assuming we're waiting for Luigi to adapt makemessages and kick start the migration process. @ltoscano, is there anything I can help with to get the Git migration done sooner?

Also, if there is just one author, maybe we could just commit the change using the proper authorship information.

I think we should remember to report all the authors in the commit messages when importing the content.

kajongg only has german voices https://invent.kde.org/games/kajongg/-/merge_requests/2

kdeedu-data ktuberling khangman are blocked by sr magicly shared cmake file cmake_modules/srDataMacros.cmake

You're right about the step files, just removed them

• autocorrect: we need to find (separate issue) where those files should live (probably the last leftover from the kdelibs split)
• step files are probably not needed anymore, as the object info messages are now handled through po files (see step_objinfo_files.pot)

It wouldn't be difficult to make it translatable (and the infra for translating hugo and jekyll websites exists now), but I would argue that the entire website could need a small refresh in term of content and design first.

Still relevant? I see the link is broken.

In T13519#238118, @huftis wrote:

In T13519#238083, @ognarb wrote:

Storing the translations in the repo is already done with the StaticMessage.sh scripts in various website repositories. Currently, the StaticMessage.sh also post-process the po files, but I wouldn't mind transforming the po files to markdown/yaml/... at deploy time in the binary factory instead of using scripty for that.

Yes, that sounds like the better solution. The PO files should really be considered as source files, and then it makes sense that any files generated from them (.mo/.xml/.yaml/.desktop files) should automatically be generated at compile time.

The desktop files would then be .desktop.in files, and intltool (intltool-merge) could be used to generate a .desktop file from the .desktop.in file and the set of .po files – just the way it’s done for normal (non-KDE) applications which store the PO files in the source repository.

In T13519#238118, @huftis wrote:

The desktop files would then be .desktop.in files, and intltool (intltool-merge) could be used to generate a .desktop file from the .desktop.in file and the set of .po files – just the way it’s done for normal (non-KDE) applications which store the PO files in the source repository.

In T13519#238083, @ognarb wrote:

Storing the translations in the repo is already done with the StaticMessage.sh scripts in various website repositories. Currently, the StaticMessage.sh also post-process the po files, but I wouldn't mind transforming the po files to markdown/yaml/... at deploy time in the binary factory instead of using scripty for that.

In T11070#238111, @sanecito wrote:

The problem was not with tools (again). One more tool just makes the current life harder. Just look at this thread. All the problems can be solved with better team management.

No it can't. While technically there is a transfer process happening from SVN to Git, the problem of 'localizers should know SVN' is not being addressed. It's great that you and others put in the time to learn SVN, but telling linguists that no, they must first learn SVN to contribute string suggestions is utterly ridiculous and offputting. It's like telling people they can't make a fire with a lighter and instead they have to use a wood spindle simply because you spent time learning how to use a wood spindle. There are better tools in the world; KDE does not benefit by being stuck in the past using wood spindles over lighters. If you read the actual original ticket, the issue is not that coordinators have to sign off on translations, but rather the process to get, write, and submit suggestions is absolutely painful.

People are getting incredibly stuck up on approval being 'have X' votes. It doesn't have to be this way if this is an issue for people. You can have the old process in Weblate: someone submits a suggestion via Weblate, and then a team coordinator signs off on it/'submits' it. Coordinators can easily find these by either setting up notifications when a new suggestion is made for x component with y language, or just select strings w/ X language suggestions from the dashboard.

On a separate not unrelated to the tool, it's worth noting that at some point you have to make someone a team coordinator if there are no active ones for the language. Team coordinators of the past weren't magically given commit access, KDE granted it to them through some process or lack there of. Whatever process KDE used to say to establish the first Italian, Russian, etc team coordinators is the process that you can use going forward when dealing w/ inactive coordinators or the lack there of.

I suggest everyone (and I literally mean everyone) stops commenting on this ticket for 48 hours.

In T11070#238107, @yurchor wrote:

In T11070#238103, @zhigalin wrote:

In T11070#238101, @yurchor wrote:

I think there is some infantile way of think that we see here: "I do not want to send translation in the Russian ML or to Russian coordinator (that's the requirement). I do not even want to know the team policies. I want to do it my way! The problems for other teams are acceptable to me!" That's how it sounds now.

Oh, wow.
I didn't wanted to seem rude to you so I didn't wrote anything about it but if you are speaking like this I might as well go on:
You in all the messages you wrote so far, including the one I am replying to, displayed exceptional infantile clinginess to the current system to the point you had to assign words a different meaning unique to your understanding, and do cheap manipulations like selective blindness and putting your own words into the mouth of your opponents.

Oh, yes. The current system is awful (no doubts) because it uses Subversion that you do not want to learn.

First, using SVN in 2020 is like using Cobol.
The only possible motivation you would be willing to learn Cobol in 2020 is because you're doing it for a bank which pays you a ton of money.
Second, the problem is not the VCS used. If it would be git the issue would be pretty much the same.

The problem was not with tools (again). One more tool just makes the current life harder. Just look at this thread. All the problems can be solved with better team management.

In T11070#238054, @pshinjo wrote:

In T11070#238043, @clel wrote:

You might have some good points here. I understand that for an active team there is not much need for such a system. However, almost no language has all Strings translated already when looking at: https://l10n.kde.org/stats/gui/stable-kf5/team/. Quite the opposite if you look how much untranslated Strings there are for many languages. So apparently almost no team is active enough to reach a completeness level of 100 %. Thus I assume they lack the time and manpower.

Just to say, GNOME's l10n system is called "Damned Lies" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics). Yes, only a small number of teams reach 100% in the statistics. I personally do not aim 100% there because:

• websites-kde-org/www_www.po contains ALL release notes dating back from KDE 4.x era. Even if I translate 100% of them who will practically read all of them? Also I don't direct other translators to touch them either.
• Big specialized applications: I would name Krita, KStars, GCompris, RKWard as examples. They require specialized domain knowledge for usage (and correct translation). For some languages, even finding a user who is using the application in English (and eventually willing for a translation) could be hard enough.

In T11070#238099, @zhigalin wrote:

You and someone other seems to be making a mistake by equalizing our code contribution barrier and our translation contribution barrier.
They are not the same.
A developer unable to use git and collaboration platforms like Phabricator and Gitlab is not a good developer.
Devs can pass the code contribution barrier by using their developer skills.
But for a translator the usage of SVN (or other VCS) and the ability to handle handle PO files is not a part of their area of competence.
Sure, they can learn it, if they need it.
But as formerly said, they don't need it.
Because this is a purely volunteering part (unlike for devs who are getting experience and contributing to their CV).
The fundamental difference between the code barrier and the i18n barrier is that the skills necessary to overcome said barrier are inside the area of competence for devs but outside for translators,
so, if a dev can't handle it then he is not good enough to be allowed to contribute, but if a translator can't overcome the current barrier this does not mean he is not good enough.

In T11070#238106, @safaalfulaij wrote:

Hello all.
I have been watching this for a while now, and I have to admit it: there are good points from both sides here.

My take is this story:

Let's imagine a semi-inactive language team X. After a period of time, a new translator appears! Great.
They start translating using the great nice-looking web interface, and starts sharing it with friends and social media.
Next day, 20 new translators appear! Great. They work randomly on what they feel they want to contribute for, and also share that with thier friends.
Several days later, 40 new translator appear! Now all of the 60 + 1 translators start translting and voting for each other, and things are going just fine.

After a period of time, a new user moves to KDE, and finds the chess game. Time to play chesss! While playing, he reads "Checkmark". Hmmm... whats that? Did they mean "Check"?
Opens a bug, a developer seeks the language team maintainer (that first translator). The translators investigate and find that 40+ people approved/voted for "Checkmark" as a translation of "Check" [mate] in a chess game. He reverts that, and a war starts.

Where is the error? Sharing what you love? People voting on strings even though we set the criteria so high (10)?

This is how I see it: By using Weblate-alike interafce, we set the barrier too low that anyone (those 60 weren't all translators, but people who understand both English and X language) can contribute without any mentoring/checking/guidance etc etc.