Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove es_MX translation #50

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Remove es_MX translation #50

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

fitojb
Copy link
Contributor

@fitojb fitojb commented Apr 23, 2020

It is a huge burden for volunteers to try to fully translate a project
this size two times. There is nothing in Git’s terminology that merits
the creation of a duplicate Spanish translation. In Spanish-language
localization of computer software, dialectal files are mostly to address
minor vocabulary differences in colloquial language, meaning that locales
like es_MX or es_ES should only be produced for video games and related
programs, but not projects like Git.

It is a huge burden for volunteers to try to fully translate a project
this size two times. There is nothing in Git’s terminology that merits
the creation of a duplicate Spanish translation. In Spanish-language
localization of computer software, dialectal files are mostly to address
minor vocabulary differences in colloquial language, meaning that locales
like es_MX or es_ES should only be produced for video games and related
programs, but not projects like Git.
@rimrul
Copy link
Contributor

rimrul commented May 1, 2020

There are 2 issues with this:

  • If we drop one of these translations, we should merge them. There's a bunch of translated strings in documentation.es_MX.po that aren't translated in documentation.es.po. These would be lost if we just drop one of them. We should keep them at least as fuzzy translations. (What weblate calls "Strings marked for editing")
  • Even if we drop documentation.es_MX.po from the Github repo, it stays on weblate (as we discovered in Licensing #27/Fix licensing issues #36)

Repository owner deleted a comment Mar 2, 2023
Repository owner locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 11, 2023
@jnavila jnavila force-pushed the master branch 2 times, most recently from de2fb9a to e9d2cab Compare February 6, 2024 20:17
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants