Hi,

2010.04.19 19:06, David Planella rašė:
> El ds 17 de 04 de 2010 a les 13:44 +0000, en/na Rimas Kudelis va
> escriure: 
>   
>> * While I do agree with what you said regarding standardisation, we have
>> a little problem: manpower. Lack of it is probably the biggest reason
>> why I don't really see it happening in the short term: coming to a
>> consensus is one thing, but actually realising it is totally different.
>>     
> But if there is this lack of manpower, would it not have been better to
> wait with the plural migration and try to reach consensus first, rather
> than a project using a different plural form than all the others?
>   

It wasn't a problem until Launchpad. As you of course know, every .po
file has its own plural header, so there is no conflict, especially
among different projects.

> El dg 18 de 04 de 2010 a les 07:30 +0000, en/na Donatas Glodenis va
> escriure:
>   
>> Also we should perhaps raise the question about changing the number of
>> plural forms with other developers and translators in Lithuania to
>> perpahs switch to 4 forms... Would it be possible to achieve, what do
>> you think?
>>     
> I think this should be discussed within the Lithuanian community and
> whichever communication channels the different upstream translation
> projects use, rather than on this bug. This will give you the
> possibility to get input from everyone involved and to discuss in a more
> appropriate medium than on a bug tracker (mailing list, IRC, forum,
> etc.).
>   

I guess Donatas' question was directed at me. In any case, we will
probably have a discussion on our mailing list, but like I said, I'm
rather skeptic about the outcome because of the lack of manpower AND
this problem being KDE-specific (Donatas explained me why KDE went for
four plural forms, and I don't think the problem being solved is common
in other projects).

> El dl 19 de 04 de 2010 a les 14:53 +0000, en/na Gintautas Miliauskas va
> escriure: 
>   
>> FWIW, I as the GNOME Lithuanian translation coordinator would also like
>> to bypass Launchpad translations for GNOME packages that are
>> translatable under l10n.gnome.org.
>>
>>     
> That is a separate discussion, which I'd be happy to discuss further on
> the Ubuntu Translators list or offline. In any case, that is currently
> not technically possible, and I'd personally would prefer to keep a
> unified approach in handling translations than having exceptions.
>
> If there is any kind of conflict or miscommunication between the
> Lithuanian GNOME and Ubuntu translation teams, please let me know and
> I'll try to help in what I can.
>   

I guess the main problem is that mostly it's the same people that
produce translations both in upstream and in Launchpad. Keeping them in
sync manually only consumes more time and doesn't really add much value
to the result. Perhaps Launchpad could be extended to allow blacklisting
certain packages from being translatable in it, and Ubuntu would just
use upstream translations in those cases, at least as long as they're
complete.

> As a summary, though, in my opinion the solution to this problem should
> rather be social than technical, and it would be good that the
> Lithuanian translation community would try to reach consensus before
> individual projects migrate unilaterally to a different plural form.
>   

I think we're having both a social and a technical problem here.
Launchpad was meant to ease translation process, but instead, it's more
of an obstacle in this case.

Rimas