RFC: Rails i18n vs. gettext_i18n_rails

Matt Wagner matt.wagner at redhat.com
Thu Apr 26 20:56:56 UTC 2012


On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:02:07AM +0200, Mo Morsi wrote:
> On 04/20/2012 05:27 PM, Matt Wagner wrote:
> > I do think that their method has a few advantages:
> > * They use .po files, which should work seamlessly with Zanata. Our
> > * language files seem to take some manual effort to import to/export
> > * form Zanata.
> > * As flat files, their files are less likely to have duplication. We
> > * have pools.pools as "Pools", but "breadcrumbs.pools" is also "Pools".
> > * (As an arbitrary example.) This isn't the end of the world, though.
> >
> 
> Perhaps a quicker interim solution would be to automate Jozef's process
> to migrate these translations for use in Zanata?
> 
> How long would writing a rake task to convert our language files to po's
> take? (or vice-versa).
> 
> Might be simpler / quicker than changing the backend all together, could
> be contributed upstream, and would save us time in the long run (no need
> to manually run these steps every time).

That's not a bad idea. Although this feature started out because of the
differences between Katello and Aeolus; the ease of future conversions
was sort of an incidental benefit. (Though one worth considering.) I
think that, if we do end automating some of the conversion (I can't
speak to how involved that would be; that's Jozef's specialty), it
doesn't really have to occur now.

Is it safe to say that the conclusion of looking at I18n vs.
gettext_i18n_rails is that we do not wish to switch libraries? I think
that is what was implied here, and it does match what I have come to
believe. I figured I should check before closing the task as such,
though...

-- Matt



More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list