[Translation] Add missing translations using ChatGPT #53417
Conversation
|
@nicolas-grekas I specifically mentioned professional translator, because I actually work with one. I can provide a proof of that if necessary. When I had a native speaker available, I mentioned it explicitly. |
|
OK, great. I'm surprised you're able to deliver so many languages at this rate. |
|
Hi Nicolas, I was always explicit in my PRs about where the translations come from. I saw that maybe I'll be able to help quicker so I contacted a company and ordered those translations - all of them were made by native speakers or sworn translators, I have asked for that. Since they were ready today, I submitted all PRs. I didn't assign myself until they were ready, to not block anyone who would like to contribute. Would it be possible for you to merge my PRs once I rebase them? |
|
Sure, I can do that. If you have more patches on the topic, it'd be nice if you could group them in one PR also. 🙏 |
|
@nicolas-grekas excellent, I'll rebase them shortly. |
|
@nicolas-grekas all PRs rebased, checked diffs and they update only the |
467f8f2 to
e4fa398
Compare
|
PR rebased and ready. |
|
@nicolas-grekas what do you think of having a list of native speakers, ready to review such messages, which could then get a ping after ChatGPT proposed a translation? |
|
@OskarStark we would need a way to manage that list. And since things should remain open, people should be able to subscribe and unsubscribe at will. One idea in this direction could be to have one special issue managed by carsbonbot that is opened/closed when needed, and that people could register to to be notified of when a new translation is needed. Or maybe one issue per language (but I'm not sure this is a good idea as that'd also mean spamming notifications - one single issue wouldn't). @Nyholm WDYT also? |
|
|
@nicolas-grekas I volunteer as tribute for Polish. 😄 |
That wouldn't work, I already had that idea for bridges in Notifier, Mailer etc. but this file only has some effect for members of the repo/orga 😢 |
WDYT of using |
It's not in the xliff spec: https://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/v1.2/os/xliff-core.html#state |
This PR was merged into the 5.4 branch. Discussion ---------- Add .github/sync-translations.php | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Branch? | 5.4 | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | no | Deprecations? | no | Issues | - | License | MIT That's the script I used in #53404 With current branch numbers as example: when adding a new message to translate on 7.1, we would ask the author to add it to the "en.xlf" file on 5.4, to run this script, and only then to send the PR on 5.4 This would ensure new messages are duplicated in all languages. We could also run chatgpt on that PR to pre-fill all translations, building on #53417 Commits ------- 9c4cb74 Add .github/sync-translations.php
|
Thank you @nicolas-grekas. |
… of "This is not" in error messages (nicolas-grekas) This PR was merged into the 5.4 branch. Discussion ---------- [Validator] Consistently use "This value is not" instead of "This is not" in error messages | Q | A | ------------- | --- | Branch? | 5.4 | Bug fix? | no | New feature? | no | Deprecations? | no | Issues | - | License | MIT That's longer but more understandable. That's also how most messages are constructed already. Related to #53417 Commits ------- 96c7fbd [Validator] Consistently use "This value is not" instead of "This is not" in error messages
This is a follow up of #53404
The process around the maintenance of our translation files is too heavy currently. I feel like spending hours on the topic, and I guess it's the same for contributors.
Instead, I propose to account for the GPT tools that are really good at translating our short messages.
In order to still allow and call for human review, I propose to use the
state="needs-review-translation"on<target>tags as defined by XLIFF.With some help from carsonbot, we'll be able to call for reviews per language. My proposal would be to make it able to send PRs that remove the
stateattribute but call for reviews by a native speaker before we could merge. We could even make the reviewer the author of the git commit if we want to keep some sort of history on the topic.@thunderer I'd prefer being explicit about using GPT. I'm going to replace your PRs by this one sorry.