Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Do you know any good tools to support the translation of .arb files?
It's a standard for Flutter and since Google Translator Toolkit will be sunset soon (https://support.google.com/translatortoolkit/answer/9462068) we're searching for a good solution to translate/gather our translations
Edit (June 2020): There's great new open source project called Arbify. This is a self-hosted tool to manage multiple translation projects focused on Flutter. You can edit arb files and fetch them via Dart package tool.
Aside from that some services like POEditor have announced basic support for ARB too.
At the moment the best support for arb files is on Localizely. However, this is a paid service and has strict limits on a free version. It allows to export arb translation files with plurals and placeholder support. It doesn't support genders, though.
There is also one simple web editor and one desktop editor (Babel) that support arb files.
Crowdin supports .arb:
https://support.crowdin.com/supported-formats/
It is also able to pull the data from a Git repo and send Pull Requests on GitHub.
However, when I used it in 2018 there was a problem of ##last_modified attribute being updated without any other changes to the translation files, causing lots of churn in PRs. By that time, they were reluctant to improve the situation (based on email conversation with their support), so we resorted to manual edits.
https://localise.biz/ allows 2000 translations. Which I assume are 1000 strings in 2 languages or ~666 strings in 3 languages and so on. Which is more than https://localizely.com/ 150 strings
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
What I plan to do in some of my README.md files is provide hyperlinks to other sites that I cite. However, we all run into that problem when links die or get moved, and said link becomes invalidated. =(
Is there a github tool that can run nightly checks to see if all the links in a README.md file (or something similar) are working correctly?
What I'm looking for is something that has a feature similar to Travis CI, where a project could have a badge saying "link-passing" on the project's main github page. (Example: scikit-learn has those two classy looking "build-passing" badges.)
I think what you want to use is awesome_bot.
It doesn't provide the badge you want but it does check URLs in files.
From what I get from your question, Travis is actually enough to do the checking task.
I have already implemented it in this project. It's based on nodejs package named grunt-deadlink, Travis-CI configuration is also included. Unfortunately it doesn't support nightly test (as far as I know).
For shiny badge you can simply use this badge generator service.
Another tool that could also be integrated in your CI-Pipeline is mlc.
I integrated it in the pipeline of another project of mine
The mlc link checker is written in rust and fairly fast by using async calls to check web links.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm writing documentation for a GitHub project and wondering where should I write it to. There seems to be three options: GitHub Pages, GitHub Wiki or a set of Markdown files in the repository (e.g. under docs/ directory) similar to the README.md. Understandably I don't want to write the same documentation to multiple places so I have to pick one.
So what are the differences, pros and cons between the options? Any experience or thoughts about using them especially for project documentation? Also is there other options in addition to the three?
that is a very good question which I personally decide on a change-frequency and number-of-contributors basis.
As an example: in one of our projects (a c++ library) we create a HTML documentation with doxygen once in a while (e.g. while updating the master release branch). That's a perfect match for quasi-static gh-pages. In addition you get a sub domain for it http://<user>.github.io/<project>/ and you can register your own domains on top of it.
An other project contains developer and user documentation (a C++ program). I personally prefer to provide a main workflow for developers in .md files to keep them consistent with the mainline development. Changes will be reviewed by pull requests first.
But for user documentation we choose the build-in wiki since it is very easy to edit and modify - one can even allow modifications by non-members of a team.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm working on an opensource project on Github. I'd created some documents in Github's md format. However I want those documents available in three formats:
PDF: To be downloaded with project
HTML: To be hosted on my personal site.
Markdown (.md): For Github.
Obviously I'd not prefer to write them thrice. Is there any way I write it once anywhere (although MS Word preferred) and it could be converted to other two formats?
Consider Pandoc
I'd write in Markdown and convert to the others.
Another possibility is DITA. Its free reference implementation, the DITA Open Toolkit, lets you generate HTML and PDF out of the box, and can be customized to generate Markdown as well.
But, DITA might be a more sophisticated solution than you need, depending on your requirements for content reuse, the size of your docs, how frequently you update, whether you will be employing a technical writer to maintain and update your docs... It's a powerful solution better suited for a dedicated documentation effort than a one time ad-hoc situation.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am tasked to research and evaluate a long overdue CMS system for our dept within a large software company. For the most part we need a system that has workflows and the ability to publish static content to a specified location (app server, cdn etc...). We aren't interested in a typical CMS that let's you create templated websites. Our developers will still be creating our applications in their preferred language and will ideally pick up the static content that will populate areas of our websites from the CMS to avoid code deployments for every little content change.
Another department is doing this using Teamsite. Aside from Teamsite can anyone here recommend a CMS? I'm not too impressed with their interface (and their price tag). I found a product called Ingeniux that does what we need (multi format output) but I haven't heard much about them and need to demo their system.
While this is our main requirement, other requirements would be - average price tag (free to $20k, rather than +$100k a year), self hosted (not a hosted or cloud solution), and straightforward setup and integration process (ideally we don't want to hire a consulting company to stand up the servers etc...).
Thanks.
You could
put some of that money to fund one of this open source projects
ask the author to do custom work for you
allocate time for one of your coders to learn the technology and implement and maintain the tool you need by an open-source project.
I used, with satisfaction, for some of my work:
Ruby
NANOC
Jekyll
Webby
Middleman
Ruhoh
...And a bunch of other solutions from this big list at Nanoc website.
Node.js + Coffescript
DocPad
Also try this lightweight cms using ruby and google drive nice alternative.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I need a simple, web-based version control tool. 'Version Control' probably implies a lot of functionality I don't need such as diff and merge.
Basically, I have a lot of non-programmer types working on binary files (think Photoshop PSDs), and I would just like a way to check them out and in, and keep previous versions.
Web-based would be ideal, I just want something better than nested folders on a shared drive.
Suggestions?
You could try asvcs: it's web-based and very simple. My advice would be to try one of the known solutions (svn, git, mercurial, even bazaar) and use only the features you need.
Dropbox provides a web interface and can be used as a simple version control system.
Try building something around git. (Or maybe set up a private github account.)
Springloops has what you're looking for. However, it's a paid service. Integrates nicely with Basecamp
You could also use Dropbox. There's version control of sorts. But history is kept only for 1 month.
And there's github
I know through experience that Atlassian's Confluence wiki solution will do versioning for binary uploads. I'm sure there are probably other open source alternatives available as well.