Re: Transifex has become proprietary
snip If so, is that moving to an existing zanata instance that is being run for us? Or is that talking about fedora infrastructure creating such an instance? I've added this item in the list [1], and will keep you in the loop. ok. Kevin, I had the meetup with zanata team. The instance is created on openshift. Any resource will be supplied by zanata team so far. I am updating the plan and will update all soonish. noriko ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Hi, Maybe it was mentioned before but are we really going to migrate to Zanata before F21 release? I saw the high level schedule on Wiki[1]. As a lot of new things and changes coming to F21, I'm kind of hoping not rushing migration before F21. Just play safe, we can start migration afterwards. Here are my concerns to migrate to Zanata BEFORE F21 release: 1. Infra and Web team will probably be busy to support the changes in Fedora.next. In case of anything wrong with Zanata migration, we may not have enough hands to help. 2. I don't have concrete number but it would be safe to assume that current users of Fedora Transifex Hub are significantly larger than public Zanata instance. We don't know how Zanata would cope with such a high demands during F21 translation window. Giving now it was powered by OpenShift, in theory it shouldn't be a problem to scale up. But hey, we'd better be caution. 3. So far this message is only relayed to few translation mailing lists and the talk with Zanata team is just started. And the season of translating will start next Monday! :) Not much time for us to come up a tangible migration plan. Nevertheless, it's not like Transifex will going to charge us a large $$$ or shut us off. Thus really no need to rush things down before F21. We can make it a phase-by-phase plan. The last thing I would want to see is a surprise during migration cause loss of precious history or credit. Shall we take the opportunity of FLOCK to discuss this more thoroughly? Since we have never rejected a CC-licensed PhotoShop-ed wallpaper contest submission, or a PO translation edited by TextMate, Transifex going proprietary shouldn't post a threat to our 4Fs IMHO. I'm also supporting mitigation to Zanata if it can bring us better integration with FAS and more streamlined translation workflow. Regards, Tommy [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_To_Zanata#Move_To_Zanata_Schedule_Plan On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: (2014年07月12日 03:20), Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000 Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: ...snip... Btw, unless Infrastructure team needs to track this discussion for some maintenance reason, can we discuss at trans list only as many of translators have not subscribed infrastructure list? Thats fine with me for the most part, but one final question here: Kevin, no need to be final question, rather I like to hear any concern of Infra. I just do not wish to let any discussion go on and decision to be made for this issue at Infra at lists without majority of translators. From the discussion it looks like moving to zanata is coming out as the best plan moving forward? Some packages have already used zanata, as well some fedora books authors (docs team) have also used zanata. Therefore many of translators are familiar with zanata than any other tool. I see a number of people supporting zanata in this list as well trans at lists. I will make sure that translators do reach the consensus on this. If so, is that moving to an existing zanata instance that is being run for us? Or is that talking about fedora infrastructure creating such an instance? I've added this item in the list [1], and will keep you in the loop. I'm fine with us moving to a hosted instance if translators and websites folks all agree that is the best way forward, but I am not really comfortable running our own instance. Let me ask a few things here. Should we include websites team for discussion? You are saying 'not comfortable', does that mean not enough resource on Infra team? [1]:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_To_Zanata#Concerns Thanks noriko kevin ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- Take a Deep Breath out of Windows https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Lovenemesis ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:23:00 +1000 Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: (2014年07月12日 03:20), Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000 Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: ...snip... Btw, unless Infrastructure team needs to track this discussion for some maintenance reason, can we discuss at trans list only as many of translators have not subscribed infrastructure list? Thats fine with me for the most part, but one final question here: Kevin, no need to be final question, rather I like to hear any concern of Infra. Sure. I meant one more that I can think of right now. ;) I just do not wish to let any discussion go on and decision to be made for this issue at Infra at lists without majority of translators. Absolutely. You are the folks using it. From the discussion it looks like moving to zanata is coming out as the best plan moving forward? Some packages have already used zanata, as well some fedora books authors (docs team) have also used zanata. Therefore many of translators are familiar with zanata than any other tool. I see a number of people supporting zanata in this list as well trans at lists. I will make sure that translators do reach the consensus on this. Sounds good. If so, is that moving to an existing zanata instance that is being run for us? Or is that talking about fedora infrastructure creating such an instance? I've added this item in the list [1], and will keep you in the loop. ok. I'm fine with us moving to a hosted instance if translators and websites folks all agree that is the best way forward, but I am not really comfortable running our own instance. Let me ask a few things here. Should we include websites team for discussion? Yes, it would be good to pull in them... it will mean some change in their processes. You are saying 'not comfortable', does that mean not enough resource on Infra team? Yeah, just off the top of my head: * We have 0 people with jboss experence * We have not planned any hardware for this, so we don't have anything ready this fiscal year for something like this. * Our normal requirements have anything we deploy be packaged for Fedora/EPEL, this could take a while if there's not already packaging for Zanata. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Hi Miroslav, The data we have is that very few people used (and use) the open-source version of Transifex. Some of those who did, were using an even older version of Transifex (0.9) which we weren't actively maintaining. We have asked around and carefully reviewed whether a move like this will have a measurable outcome. In the end, there is an open-source repo available [1]. It's old and unmaintained, but it's there to fork and hack on. -d [1]: https://github.com/transifex/transifex/ On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/03/2014 04:20 PM, Dimitris Glezos wrote: It's a good thing that this came up, it'd be nice to have a clear decision from the Fedora part. I explained in detail the log reasoning behind the decision to stop maintaining the open-source branch in the GitHub issue Rahul provided. Dimitris, I understood that it costed you a lot of time to provide sources, which works for everybody and which were rarely used. So you stopped releasing it. But can you release the code, which works just for you? The code for your main instance? And if somebody want to run his own instance, let him maintain the differences. This will have the benefit, that people will be able to browse the code and contribute with fixes/RFE (yet without testing), but you can finalize it yourself as you did with my XLIFF contribution. And you will be open-source company (which I believe you are in heart). And Fedora will be able to continue Transifex. Otherwise - I'm afraid - the force to use open-source solution will be too strong and migration to other system will be inevitable. And that would be shame, because I still think that Transifex has superior features. Please reconsider this in your team. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- Dimitris Glezos Founder CEO, Transifex https://www.transifex.com/ ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
(2014年07月12日 03:20), Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000 Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: ...snip... Btw, unless Infrastructure team needs to track this discussion for some maintenance reason, can we discuss at trans list only as many of translators have not subscribed infrastructure list? Thats fine with me for the most part, but one final question here: Kevin, no need to be final question, rather I like to hear any concern of Infra. I just do not wish to let any discussion go on and decision to be made for this issue at Infra at lists without majority of translators. From the discussion it looks like moving to zanata is coming out as the best plan moving forward? Some packages have already used zanata, as well some fedora books authors (docs team) have also used zanata. Therefore many of translators are familiar with zanata than any other tool. I see a number of people supporting zanata in this list as well trans at lists. I will make sure that translators do reach the consensus on this. If so, is that moving to an existing zanata instance that is being run for us? Or is that talking about fedora infrastructure creating such an instance? I've added this item in the list [1], and will keep you in the loop. I'm fine with us moving to a hosted instance if translators and websites folks all agree that is the best way forward, but I am not really comfortable running our own instance. Let me ask a few things here. Should we include websites team for discussion? You are saying 'not comfortable', does that mean not enough resource on Infra team? [1]:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_To_Zanata#Concerns Thanks noriko kevin ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Hi all, On 07/11/2014 10:50 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000 Noriko Mizumotonor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: ...snip... Btw, unless Infrastructure team needs to track this discussion for some maintenance reason, can we discuss at trans list only as many of translators have not subscribed infrastructure list? Thats fine with me for the most part, but one final question here: From the discussion it looks like moving to zanata is coming out as the best plan moving forward? If so, is that moving to an existing zanata instance that is being run for us? Or is that talking about fedora infrastructure creating such an instance? I'm fine with us moving to a hosted instance if translators and websites folks all agree that is the best way forward, but I am not really comfortable running our own instance. Its good to use hosted instance and not to create any new instance. Regards, Parag. ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Hi All, One option we have is to create a Role within Zanata and restrict access to all Fedora projects to users of that Role only. This would guarantee that only users members of that role would be able to translate the 'Fedora' projects and only for their assigned languages. We currently have something like that set up on the public Zanata instance (translate.zanata.org) where anyone with a fedora account gets automatically assigned to the 'Fedora' role and is able to translate projects restricted to that role. Let me know if we need to discuss this further. Regards, Carlos A. Munoz Software Engineering Supervisor Engineering - Internationalization Red Hat - Original Message - From: Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org To: Marcelo Barbosa fireman...@fedoraproject.org Cc: Fedora Infrastructure infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org, Fedora Translation Project List tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 2:48:42 PM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary (2014年07月11日 13:41), Marcelo Barbosa wrote: Guys, We may collect the Transifex all Coordinators, Reviewers and Translators through the API, for example: $ curl -i -L --user username:password -X GET https://www.transifex.com/api/2/project/fedora/language/pt_BR/ Think this activity will diminish the impact of migration. Today we have the teams names entry Zanata different of wiki page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams) and too Transifex, for example, in the case of my team in Zanata this: pt-br and in our wiki this pt_br and Transifex pt_BR, I believe our default is wiki, in my opinion. Agree, our default is wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams The steps for migrations(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_To_Zanata) is necessary creating the group Fedora, from what I understand in of Zanata a group should have the Fedora, in languages would be the teams and designs belong to a group, I believe that the relationship is this, if I'm wrong please correct me. I am not too sure if the group in zanata works as it has been working at transifex. Here we need an input from zanata team, Luke, Carlos? afaik, currently zanata has only one set of language teams. Thus translator belonging to xx-XX can translate any file for xx-XX of any project registered. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding. * Zanata/Language Team/xx-XX We may need separate set of language teams to control access, since there are other projects which is not part of Fedora. This restricts translator who is not belonging to particular umbrella (group, org, whatever called) from translating file(s) of that umbrella. * Zanata/Fedora/Language Team/xx-XX * Zanata/Project_Name/Language Team/xx-XX Transifex has had this feature. Thus there is no need to worry that non-member of xx-XX of the language team under that umbrella modifies a file. * Tx/Fedora/Language Team/xx-XX * Tx/Transifex/Language Team/xx-XX * Tx/Project_Name/Language Team/xx-XX I've requested this feature sometime ago, but unable to locate the bug... This is the one listed under 'Concerns'. Btw, unless Infrastructure team needs to track this discussion for some maintenance reason, can we discuss at trans list only as many of translators have not subscribed infrastructure list? noriko I hope the new version of Zanata (3.4.2) is faster, because for me the test platform is a little slow. Thanks, firemanxbr On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org mailto:nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hi Dimitris I've read your thread posted in Infra. Indeed, it is sad to hear but understand your position. It was just like yesterday, we moved from elvis to transifex. Since then, you have been supporting us translators 24/7. I thank you so much from my heart, can't say enough. I support the move to zanata, but I don't think that our relationship is fading out. Robyn, thanks for copying trans at lists. I believe that this (trans list) is the place to discuss and decide the way we go as translators. Thanks again noriko (2014年07月10日 22:01), Robyn Bergeron wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com mailto:ke...@scrye.com To: infrastructure@lists.__fedoraproject.org mailto:infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 9:53:48 AM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr mailto:pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Hi Marcelo, The new version of Zanata is a bit faster. After migrating the platform over to OpenShift we found there were some things that slowed it down, and Carlos' team has reworked a few things to improve the performance. One great advantage we have now though is being able to push out updates very fast when necessary, which I think will be a great asset to the Fedora community, and something you will expect. Thanks, Isaac - Original Message - From: Marcelo Barbosa fireman...@fedoraproject.org To: nor...@fedoraproject.org, Fedora Translation Project List tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Fedora Infrastructure infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 1:41:13 PM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary Guys, We may collect the Transifex all Coordinators, Reviewers and Translators through the API, for example: $ curl -i -L --user username:password -X GET https://www.transifex.com/api/2/project/fedora/language/pt_BR/ Think this activity will diminish the impact of migration. Today we have the teams names entry Zanata different of wiki page ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams ) and too Transifex, for example, in the case of my team in Zanata this: pt-br and in our wiki this pt_br and Transifex pt_BR, I believe our default is wiki, in my opinion. The steps for migrations( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_To_Zanata ) is necessary creating the group Fedora, from what I understand in of Zanata a group should have the Fedora, in languages would be the teams and designs belong to a group, I believe that the relationship is this, if I'm wrong please correct me. I hope the new version of Zanata (3.4.2) is faster, because for me the test platform is a little slow. Thanks, firemanxbr On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hi Dimitris I've read your thread posted in Infra. Indeed, it is sad to hear but understand your position. It was just like yesterday, we moved from elvis to transifex. Since then, you have been supporting us translators 24/7. I thank you so much from my heart, can't say enough. I support the move to zanata, but I don't think that our relationship is fading out. Robyn, thanks for copying trans at lists. I believe that this (trans list) is the place to discuss and decide the way we go as translators. Thanks again noriko (2014年07月10日 22:01), Robyn Bergeron wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com To: infrastructure@lists. fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 9:53:48 AM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering https://issues.mediagoblin. org/ticket/913 For the record, I support the move away from Transifex and will relay the sad news to the projects where I have before advice for it. The question is of course moving to what? That's something I cannot advice on atm. Yeah. There's also some more mentioned in the above mediagoblin ticket. Would someone care to look at them all and provide some summary about each and how well they might work for our needs? Copying the trans list since they probably have some good input about their needs :) (And nothing on this topic in their archives, not sure how much overlap between these two lists.) For the translations team's reference - https://lists.fedoraproject. org/pipermail/infrastructure/ 2014-July/014475.html is the original mail Rahul posted on the subject. -Robyn kevin __ _ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists. fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject. org/mailman/listinfo/ infrastructure -- trans mailing list tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject. org/mailman/listinfo/trans -- trans mailing list tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject. org/mailman/listinfo/trans -- trans mailing list tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans -- Isaac Rooskov Supervisor, Localization Services Product Manager, Zanata Red Hat ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Hi everyone, I realized that we already have the latest version of Zanata in the production environment [1]. [1]:https://translate.zanata.org/ Thanks, firemanxbr On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Carlos Munoz camu...@redhat.com wrote: Hi All, One option we have is to create a Role within Zanata and restrict access to all Fedora projects to users of that Role only. This would guarantee that only users members of that role would be able to translate the 'Fedora' projects and only for their assigned languages. We currently have something like that set up on the public Zanata instance (translate.zanata.org) where anyone with a fedora account gets automatically assigned to the 'Fedora' role and is able to translate projects restricted to that role. Let me know if we need to discuss this further. Regards, Carlos A. Munoz Software Engineering Supervisor Engineering - Internationalization Red Hat - Original Message - From: Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org To: Marcelo Barbosa fireman...@fedoraproject.org Cc: Fedora Infrastructure infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org, Fedora Translation Project List tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 2:48:42 PM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary (2014年07月11日 13:41), Marcelo Barbosa wrote: Guys, We may collect the Transifex all Coordinators, Reviewers and Translators through the API, for example: $ curl -i -L --user username:password -X GET https://www.transifex.com/api/2/project/fedora/language/pt_BR/ Think this activity will diminish the impact of migration. Today we have the teams names entry Zanata different of wiki page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams) and too Transifex, for example, in the case of my team in Zanata this: pt-br and in our wiki this pt_br and Transifex pt_BR, I believe our default is wiki, in my opinion. Agree, our default is wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams The steps for migrations(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_To_Zanata) is necessary creating the group Fedora, from what I understand in of Zanata a group should have the Fedora, in languages would be the teams and designs belong to a group, I believe that the relationship is this, if I'm wrong please correct me. I am not too sure if the group in zanata works as it has been working at transifex. Here we need an input from zanata team, Luke, Carlos? afaik, currently zanata has only one set of language teams. Thus translator belonging to xx-XX can translate any file for xx-XX of any project registered. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding. * Zanata/Language Team/xx-XX We may need separate set of language teams to control access, since there are other projects which is not part of Fedora. This restricts translator who is not belonging to particular umbrella (group, org, whatever called) from translating file(s) of that umbrella. * Zanata/Fedora/Language Team/xx-XX * Zanata/Project_Name/Language Team/xx-XX Transifex has had this feature. Thus there is no need to worry that non-member of xx-XX of the language team under that umbrella modifies a file. * Tx/Fedora/Language Team/xx-XX * Tx/Transifex/Language Team/xx-XX * Tx/Project_Name/Language Team/xx-XX I've requested this feature sometime ago, but unable to locate the bug... This is the one listed under 'Concerns'. Btw, unless Infrastructure team needs to track this discussion for some maintenance reason, can we discuss at trans list only as many of translators have not subscribed infrastructure list? noriko I hope the new version of Zanata (3.4.2) is faster, because for me the test platform is a little slow. Thanks, firemanxbr On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org mailto:nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hi Dimitris I've read your thread posted in Infra. Indeed, it is sad to hear but understand your position. It was just like yesterday, we moved from elvis to transifex. Since then, you have been supporting us translators 24/7. I thank you so much from my heart, can't say enough. I support the move to zanata, but I don't think that our relationship is fading out. Robyn, thanks for copying trans at lists. I believe that this (trans list) is the place to discuss and decide the way we go as translators. Thanks again noriko (2014年07月10日 22:01), Robyn Bergeron wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com mailto:ke...@scrye.com To: infrastructure@lists.__fedoraproject.org mailto:infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 9:53:48 AM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200 Pierre-Yves Chibon
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000 Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: ...snip... Btw, unless Infrastructure team needs to track this discussion for some maintenance reason, can we discuss at trans list only as many of translators have not subscribed infrastructure list? Thats fine with me for the most part, but one final question here: From the discussion it looks like moving to zanata is coming out as the best plan moving forward? If so, is that moving to an existing zanata instance that is being run for us? Or is that talking about fedora infrastructure creating such an instance? I'm fine with us moving to a hosted instance if translators and websites folks all agree that is the best way forward, but I am not really comfortable running our own instance. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Kevin, I believe that migration will occur was created a plan [1], but I believe the others in CC's will provide you with more precise information about where this running this current instance of Zanata [2], I only realized in the production url he suffered an update to its latest version. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_To_Zanata [2]:https://translate.zanata.org/ Thanks, firemanxbr On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000 Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: ...snip... Btw, unless Infrastructure team needs to track this discussion for some maintenance reason, can we discuss at trans list only as many of translators have not subscribed infrastructure list? Thats fine with me for the most part, but one final question here: From the discussion it looks like moving to zanata is coming out as the best plan moving forward? If so, is that moving to an existing zanata instance that is being run for us? Or is that talking about fedora infrastructure creating such an instance? I'm fine with us moving to a hosted instance if translators and websites folks all agree that is the best way forward, but I am not really comfortable running our own instance. kevin ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
- Original Message - From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com To: infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 9:53:48 AM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering https://issues.mediagoblin.org/ticket/913 For the record, I support the move away from Transifex and will relay the sad news to the projects where I have before advice for it. The question is of course moving to what? That's something I cannot advice on atm. Yeah. There's also some more mentioned in the above mediagoblin ticket. Would someone care to look at them all and provide some summary about each and how well they might work for our needs? Copying the trans list since they probably have some good input about their needs :) (And nothing on this topic in their archives, not sure how much overlap between these two lists.) For the translations team's reference - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2014-July/014475.html is the original mail Rahul posted on the subject. -Robyn kevin ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Hello everyone, I am Coordinator of the Brazilian Portuguese Translators Team ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Brazilian_Portuguese_Team) and would like to leave my opinion: 1) The Transifex is a tool, such as yum, NetworkManager and many others that we use every day, the Transifex has helped us do our job, but it is only a tool and I don't see a problem to change for any other tool supported by Fedora, the most important thing is we keep our principles 4 F ' s. 2) Today we have a process for new translators extremely broken and manual, very different from other teams, I'm part of Packager team where process is very clear and integrated with Fedora infra. A new translator need to follow these steps to be approved: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Guide#Becoming _ a_Fedora_Translator, we can realize there is no integration of Transifex with our FAS, Mailing list, Badges and especially with our Wiki, I think it's more relevant to the translation teams these issues than the interface. Our work has been hard and every day to make our Brazilian team more productive, less than 60 days ago were the 15 team, today are the 8 team more productive in Transifex, but how do we translate our wiki? Today we have procedures, manuals contained information only on the Wiki, then we must divide our effort on two tools: Wiki and Transifex, we've worked with two tools that do not integrate. I value the principles of Fedora and I believe in open source as many of my teammates believe, I have no problem in moving, because currently we need change to solve the problems that we have, every change that represents a small improvement will be very welcome. Best regards. firemanxbr On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Robyn Bergeron rberg...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com To: infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 9:53:48 AM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering https://issues.mediagoblin.org/ticket/913 For the record, I support the move away from Transifex and will relay the sad news to the projects where I have before advice for it. The question is of course moving to what? That's something I cannot advice on atm. Yeah. There's also some more mentioned in the above mediagoblin ticket. Would someone care to look at them all and provide some summary about each and how well they might work for our needs? Copying the trans list since they probably have some good input about their needs :) (And nothing on this topic in their archives, not sure how much overlap between these two lists.) For the translations team's reference - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2014-July/014475.html is the original mail Rahul posted on the subject. -Robyn kevin ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- trans mailing list tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Zoltan, I believe we can do some tests with the Zanata in order to validate the tool and look for little impact as possible. I came in with my account at FAS and I realized the error quoted here on the list, after adopting my FAS been redirected to this address: https://translate.zanata.org/zanata/openid.seam?openid.assoc_handle=%7BHMAC-SHA256%7D%7B53bea908%7D%7Bb9D6PQ%3D%3D%7Dopenid.ax.count.email=1openid.ax.mode=fetch_responseopenid.ax.type.email=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.openid.net%2Fcontact%2Femailopenid.ax.value.email.1=firemanxbr%40fedoraproject.orgopenid.claimed_id=http%3A%2F%2Ffiremanxbr.id.fedoraproject.org%2Fopenid.identity=http%3A%2F%2Ffiremanxbr.id.fedoraproject.org%2Fopenid.mode=id_resopenid.ns=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fauth%2F2.0openid.ns.ax=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fsrv%2Fax%2F1.0openid.ns.pape=http%3A%2F%2Fspecs.openid.net%2Fextensions%2Fpape%2F1.0openid.ns.sreg=http%3A%2F%2Fopenid.net%2Fextensions%2Fsreg%2F1.1openid.op_endpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fid.fedoraproject.org%2Fopenid%2Fopenid.pape.auth_level.nist=2openid.pape.auth_level.ns.nist=http%3A%2F%2Fcsrc.nist.gov%2Fpublications%2Fnistpubs%2F800-63%2FSP800-63V1_0_2.pdfopenid.pape.auth_policies=http%3A%2F%2Fschemas.openid.net%2Fpape%2Fpolicies%2F2007%2F06%2Fnoneopenid.pape.auth_time=2014-07-10T14%3A54%3A08Zopenid.response_nonce=2014-07-10T14%3A54%3A12ZPpl7Yiopenid.return_to=https%3A%2F%2Ftranslate.zanata.org%2Fzanata%2Fopenid.seamopenid.sig=q%2FSWk8t084n%2FQA62EI4Zel76CXdQsXJxFNFoxtmYdZ8%3Dopenid.signed=assoc_handle%2Cax.count.email%2Cax.mode%2Cax.type.email%2Cax.value.email.1%2Cclaimed_id%2Cidentity%2Cmode%2Cns%2Cns.ax%2Cns.pape%2Cns.sreg%2Cop_endpoint%2Cpape.auth_level.nist%2Cpape.auth_level.ns.nist%2Cpape.auth_policies%2Cpape.auth_time%2Cresponse_nonce%2Creturn_to%2Csigned I solved this problem by returning to the starting address: https://translate.zanata.org/zanata/, then I believe that we need to adjust this issue to continue the tests. After move a project, for example ( https://fedora.transifex.com/organization/fedora/dashboard/chkconfig) for the Zanata, creating a Group Fedora and placing this first project within this group, it would be interesting to have the same hierarchy already used in Transifex: Coordinators, reviewers and translators, this process seems to be good to avoid errors. Can you help us with these steps? Thanks, firemanxbr On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Marcel Ribeiro Dantas ribeirodanta...@gmail.com wrote: As Marcelo just stated, we have had our struggles with Transifex. A while ago, we came up as the coordinators of the localization team in Brazil, having a wider understanding of what Transifex meant from above. It is really sad that we depend on it, for it is non-free software, but being really honest, there isn't any tool even close to it with regard to efficiency. It's by far the best collaborative translation tool in the world, and for that I have no doubt. In years of translating free sotware, I haven't had the opportunity to meet any other tool as good as Transifex is currently. However, in my humble opinion, freedom comes first, not convenience. So I'm really happy that we're discussing to switch to another tool, based on the fact that Transifex is not free software. It's important to mention we have used Zanata in the past and we still use it. It doesn't have the friendly interface of Transifex, but I don't really see a problem with Zanata. Maybe the next step regarding freedom could be switching to a free kernel :-) It gives me hope. Have a nice day. -- Marcel Ribeiro Dantas, Biomedical Engineering Researcher at LAIS Laboratory for Technological Innovation in Healthcare (LAIS-HUOL) Free Software Advocate - An idea is only knowledge, when shared. http://mribeirodantas.fedorapeople.org mribeirodantas at fedoraproject.org mribeirodantas at lais.huol.ufrn.br -- trans mailing list tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
As Marcelo just stated, we have had our struggles with Transifex. A while ago, we came up as the coordinators of the localization team in Brazil, having a wider understanding of what Transifex meant from above. It is really sad that we depend on it, for it is non-free software, but being really honest, there isn't any tool even close to it with regard to efficiency. It's by far the best collaborative translation tool in the world, and for that I have no doubt. In years of translating free sotware, I haven't had the opportunity to meet any other tool as good as Transifex is currently. However, in my humble opinion, freedom comes first, not convenience. So I'm really happy that we're discussing to switch to another tool, based on the fact that Transifex is not free software. It's important to mention we have used Zanata in the past and we still use it. It doesn't have the friendly interface of Transifex, but I don't really see a problem with Zanata. Maybe the next step regarding freedom could be switching to a free kernel :-) It gives me hope. Have a nice day. -- Marcel Ribeiro Dantas, Biomedical Engineering Researcher at LAIS Laboratory for Technological Innovation in Healthcare (LAIS-HUOL) Free Software Advocate - An idea is only knowledge, when shared. http://mribeirodantas.fedorapeople.org mribeirodantas at fedoraproject.org mribeirodantas at lais.huol.ufrn.br ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
I think Zanata can be a good solution for us, and at the end we can receive a much more tightened, seamlessly integrated solution with our infra, and fedmsg, and other tech stuff. My question is that how hard would be the migration? How can we help? Thanks, Zoltan 2014-07-10 16:10 GMT+02:00 Marcelo Barbosa fireman...@fedoraproject.org: Hello everyone, I am Coordinator of the Brazilian Portuguese Translators Team (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Brazilian_Portuguese_Team) and would like to leave my opinion: 1) The Transifex is a tool, such as yum, NetworkManager and many others that we use every day, the Transifex has helped us do our job, but it is only a tool and I don't see a problem to change for any other tool supported by Fedora, the most important thing is we keep our principles 4 F ' s. 2) Today we have a process for new translators extremely broken and manual, very different from other teams, I'm part of Packager team where process is very clear and integrated with Fedora infra. A new translator need to follow these steps to be approved: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N/Guide#Becoming _ a_Fedora_Translator, we can realize there is no integration of Transifex with our FAS, Mailing list, Badges and especially with our Wiki, I think it's more relevant to the translation teams these issues than the interface. Our work has been hard and every day to make our Brazilian team more productive, less than 60 days ago were the 15 team, today are the 8 team more productive in Transifex, but how do we translate our wiki? Today we have procedures, manuals contained information only on the Wiki, then we must divide our effort on two tools: Wiki and Transifex, we've worked with two tools that do not integrate. I value the principles of Fedora and I believe in open source as many of my teammates believe, I have no problem in moving, because currently we need change to solve the problems that we have, every change that represents a small improvement will be very welcome. Best regards. firemanxbr On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Robyn Bergeron rberg...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com To: infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 9:53:48 AM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering https://issues.mediagoblin.org/ticket/913 For the record, I support the move away from Transifex and will relay the sad news to the projects where I have before advice for it. The question is of course moving to what? That's something I cannot advice on atm. Yeah. There's also some more mentioned in the above mediagoblin ticket. Would someone care to look at them all and provide some summary about each and how well they might work for our needs? Copying the trans list since they probably have some good input about their needs :) (And nothing on this topic in their archives, not sure how much overlap between these two lists.) For the translations team's reference - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2014-July/014475.html is the original mail Rahul posted on the subject. -Robyn kevin ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- trans mailing list tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans -- trans mailing list tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans -- PGP: 06853DF7 ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Guys, We may collect the Transifex all Coordinators, Reviewers and Translators through the API, for example: $ curl -i -L --user username:password -X GET https://www.transifex.com/api/2/project/fedora/language/pt_BR/ Think this activity will diminish the impact of migration. Today we have the teams names entry Zanata different of wiki page ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams) and too Transifex, for example, in the case of my team in Zanata this: pt-br and in our wiki this pt_br and Transifex pt_BR, I believe our default is wiki, in my opinion. The steps for migrations( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_To_Zanata) is necessary creating the group Fedora, from what I understand in of Zanata a group should have the Fedora, in languages would be the teams and designs belong to a group, I believe that the relationship is this, if I'm wrong please correct me. I hope the new version of Zanata (3.4.2) is faster, because for me the test platform is a little slow. Thanks, firemanxbr On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hi Dimitris I've read your thread posted in Infra. Indeed, it is sad to hear but understand your position. It was just like yesterday, we moved from elvis to transifex. Since then, you have been supporting us translators 24/7. I thank you so much from my heart, can't say enough. I support the move to zanata, but I don't think that our relationship is fading out. Robyn, thanks for copying trans at lists. I believe that this (trans list) is the place to discuss and decide the way we go as translators. Thanks again noriko (2014年07月10日 22:01), Robyn Bergeron wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com To: infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 9:53:48 AM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering https://issues.mediagoblin.org/ticket/913 For the record, I support the move away from Transifex and will relay the sad news to the projects where I have before advice for it. The question is of course moving to what? That's something I cannot advice on atm. Yeah. There's also some more mentioned in the above mediagoblin ticket. Would someone care to look at them all and provide some summary about each and how well they might work for our needs? Copying the trans list since they probably have some good input about their needs :) (And nothing on this topic in their archives, not sure how much overlap between these two lists.) For the translations team's reference - https://lists.fedoraproject. org/pipermail/infrastructure/2014-July/014475.html is the original mail Rahul posted on the subject. -Robyn kevin ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- trans mailing list tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans -- trans mailing list tr...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
(2014年07月11日 13:41), Marcelo Barbosa wrote: Guys, We may collect the Transifex all Coordinators, Reviewers and Translators through the API, for example: $ curl -i -L --user username:password -X GET https://www.transifex.com/api/2/project/fedora/language/pt_BR/ Think this activity will diminish the impact of migration. Today we have the teams names entry Zanata different of wiki page (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams) and too Transifex, for example, in the case of my team in Zanata this: pt-br and in our wiki this pt_br and Transifex pt_BR, I believe our default is wiki, in my opinion. Agree, our default is wiki. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Teams The steps for migrations(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Move_To_Zanata) is necessary creating the group Fedora, from what I understand in of Zanata a group should have the Fedora, in languages would be the teams and designs belong to a group, I believe that the relationship is this, if I'm wrong please correct me. I am not too sure if the group in zanata works as it has been working at transifex. Here we need an input from zanata team, Luke, Carlos? afaik, currently zanata has only one set of language teams. Thus translator belonging to xx-XX can translate any file for xx-XX of any project registered. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding. * Zanata/Language Team/xx-XX We may need separate set of language teams to control access, since there are other projects which is not part of Fedora. This restricts translator who is not belonging to particular umbrella (group, org, whatever called) from translating file(s) of that umbrella. * Zanata/Fedora/Language Team/xx-XX * Zanata/Project_Name/Language Team/xx-XX Transifex has had this feature. Thus there is no need to worry that non-member of xx-XX of the language team under that umbrella modifies a file. * Tx/Fedora/Language Team/xx-XX * Tx/Transifex/Language Team/xx-XX * Tx/Project_Name/Language Team/xx-XX I've requested this feature sometime ago, but unable to locate the bug... This is the one listed under 'Concerns'. Btw, unless Infrastructure team needs to track this discussion for some maintenance reason, can we discuss at trans list only as many of translators have not subscribed infrastructure list? noriko I hope the new version of Zanata (3.4.2) is faster, because for me the test platform is a little slow. Thanks, firemanxbr On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Noriko Mizumoto nor...@fedoraproject.org mailto:nor...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hi Dimitris I've read your thread posted in Infra. Indeed, it is sad to hear but understand your position. It was just like yesterday, we moved from elvis to transifex. Since then, you have been supporting us translators 24/7. I thank you so much from my heart, can't say enough. I support the move to zanata, but I don't think that our relationship is fading out. Robyn, thanks for copying trans at lists. I believe that this (trans list) is the place to discuss and decide the way we go as translators. Thanks again noriko (2014年07月10日 22:01), Robyn Bergeron wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com mailto:ke...@scrye.com To: infrastructure@lists.__fedoraproject.org mailto:infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 9:53:48 AM Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr mailto:pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering https://issues.mediagoblin.__org/ticket/913 https://issues.mediagoblin.org/ticket/913 For the record, I support the move away from Transifex and will relay the sad news to the projects where I have before advice for it. The question is of course moving to what? That's something I cannot advice on atm. Yeah. There's also some more mentioned in the above mediagoblin ticket. Would someone care to look at them all and provide some summary about each and how well they might work for our needs
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
I support moving away from TX if it prevents us from obeying our 4Fs. But as a long term translator and a team coordinator, please allow me to say something that I'm concerning about: 1. If we decide to move, what platform should we move to? Which is a better place to move? I haven't use Zanata before, so I can't compare it to transifex. I tried to login with my FAS account today, but didn't succeed, and it redirected me to signup page. On the other hand, there are coordinators in zanata already, if we move to zanata, who will be the team coordinator? The one from transifex, or the one from zanata, or both of them, or who else? 2. Will all the contributors(L10n side) willing to move, if not, we will lose some of our contributors, if yes, all the L10n contributors should sign up to another platform again, and each coordinator should approve of their join request manually. We should find some simple way to minimize the trouble. 3. Will all the translation history and record be kept? I remember the last moving, when many translators' credits and history/record were lost, at least I can't find them anymore. Of course some of the projects may keep the record on their project sites. But this should be a big issue to resolve first if we decide to move away. If any measures can be carried out to solve the problem, transifex is still a good platform for Fedora. Anyway, translators are familiar with its UI and function now. -- Regards, Tiansworld Fedora Project Contributor ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
On 07/03/2014 04:20 PM, Dimitris Glezos wrote: It's a good thing that this came up, it'd be nice to have a clear decision from the Fedora part. I explained in detail the log reasoning behind the decision to stop maintaining the open-source branch in the GitHub issue Rahul provided. Dimitris, I understood that it costed you a lot of time to provide sources, which works for everybody and which were rarely used. So you stopped releasing it. But can you release the code, which works just for you? The code for your main instance? And if somebody want to run his own instance, let him maintain the differences. This will have the benefit, that people will be able to browse the code and contribute with fixes/RFE (yet without testing), but you can finalize it yourself as you did with my XLIFF contribution. And you will be open-source company (which I believe you are in heart). And Fedora will be able to continue Transifex. Otherwise - I'm afraid - the force to use open-source solution will be too strong and migration to other system will be inevitable. And that would be shame, because I still think that Transifex has superior features. Please reconsider this in your team. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/07/14 02:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering https://issues.mediagoblin.org/ticket/913 For the record, I support the move away from Transifex and will relay the sad news to the projects where I have before advice for it. The question is of course moving to what? That's something I cannot advice on atm. Yeah. There's also some more mentioned in the above mediagoblin ticket. Would someone care to look at them all and provide some summary about each and how well they might work for our needs? I have supported some Zanata instances in the past, I don't much experience with using the tool itself. IIRC it was designed to handle the same sort of workload and file types as transifex. We have run it on jboss with data stored in a mysql backend, though some data also persists on disk these days. Upgrades between releases are generally fairly smooth, with liquibase handling schema changes. Once in a blue moon the db permissions need to be elevated for liquibase to complete its tasks. When major shcema upgrades occur sometimes the translation indexs need to be rebuilt; this can be done once the platform is up again and can be kicked off and monitored from an admin account via the web UI. The Zanata development team have been great to work with, based in the APAC region. I hope this helps, Marco translate.zanata.org translate.jboss.org - -- Marco Grigull, Systems Administrator, Systems Engineering 85 88229 / +61 7 3514 8229 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTucw7AAoJENPCXHk9trAZ7LQP/j3+wmEx+sHCQFHKP7Gr5iUn TWevMkHSN5eyz52IYT/rIHECXl86n4EH73MjBi1Wfm1ViIKmyH9B5L/3CE8C0pFM wk3VqOLeML7E4ohjxjUhBqo6XkMrufJNt7LJPfi8jrtKtZEjaQrTusMAblbq45m8 9SQaiZiMMspO1IZepYDuXKGXDJSCBxDLyrxHQwCMU+Tqu9T8aS05GweYJAEK9x9K VbTRs5KBzqI4ssymWLef2sEo7HwuwUBqCe6NLxpTtTxArr/I80IxdXunMCuIE/Wj K88v9/O+avZPeALbYGG+NLyUqCrMkm7VUpzg8CypoPqgs7cgDXbmf70OfFNxJZAq pgeQ737+ZrhY71nuJh628vEwyLdBZo0LbiypgzNm+65NsZK1vLaWO2pmZG9T7G/i 2oFAlzZIsCzOmci8nUEuRAb5nkmJ6o0cgso+x2xsErqWm+4c6hzIYUxkhHePgPkk 0kqgRpjSB2gUfLLvxkBCNbN0Y3gxgu4UZtQQjJU9/XMQuzWcyZ5gzH1ppirrHfJt OctAGaFsrsdh3AqQB3aR+Ww+07FjTmDKWRM2/Yp3hyUbdqBCrcdLfYkTQeyzje3r xk4KNBVm5Wh312TVLbKY60zOJ4HR2uUa0M/aN2QCCW9/nUSdhE65dSDAx2I/Hn4j qN76Aaqxrtw5fwZqJoVd =hC46 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Il 04/lug/2014 10:12 Pierre-Yves Chibon pin...@pingoured.fr ha scritto: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering https://issues.mediagoblin.org/ticket/913 For the record, I support the move away from Transifex and will relay the sad news to the projects where I have before advice for it. The question is of course moving to what? That's something I cannot advice on atm. Pierre I agree with Pierre and want to remark free does not mean freedom, so we can't and should never be proud of our four foundations on one side and on the other go against it. If we have an alternative, I don't know if Zanata is as mature as Transifex but I guess not, we should move away from TX, IMHO. Just my 2 cents here. Have a nice weekend. -- Robert Mayr (robyduck) ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
RE: Transifex has become proprietary
Hi! Great! Glad to hear you remember the origins. We also had some drinks together (some)years ago... ;-) Anyway. I do respect business of course... Please keep that attitude of supporting Fedora! Else, Fedora will definitely leave; I've already talked about the reasons... -of (mobile) From: infrastructure-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:infrastructure-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Glezos Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 12:09 AM To: Fedora Infrastructure Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary Oliver, Transifex is already offering a larger plan for Fedora for free for a couple of years now, and we'll continue to do so. We're proud of our origins and are respectful and thankful for all the support Transifex has had from Fedora. I still remember when we were trying to decide on a name for Transifex in #fedora-admin. =) -d On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Oliver Falk oli...@linux-kernel.at wrote: Hi Dimitris! I’m a little bit disappointed about this step, especially, since I’m quite sure there would have been other solutions. I hope you mean it serious, that you want to support the (large) Fedora community with a bigger plan for free! Else… Well… You know how important it is for us Fedora (and Red Hat) fellows that we’re building (on) F/LOSS! It has been and will always be. Therefore I do completely understand that some people on this list cry out loud now and ask for alternatives (although none come to my mind immediately). All the best to you and your business, Oliver From: infrastructure-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:infrastructure-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Glezos Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:21 PM To: Fedora Infrastructure Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary It's a good thing that this came up, it'd be nice to have a clear decision from the Fedora part. I explained in detail the log reasoning behind the decision to stop maintaining the open-source branch in the GitHub issue Rahul provided. In the meantime, the Transifex team is happy to be donating one of the bigger plans to Fedora for free (which supports sharing of teams, Transl. Memory and glossary between teams), and we'll continue to do so. -d On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Unfortunately it looks like Transifex has become proprietary and Fedora moving to using Transifex.com has been cited as one of the reasons why it wasn't important anymore for them to maintain a open source version. https://github.com/transifex/transifex/issues/206#issuecomment-15243207 Should we consider alternatives? Rahul ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- Dimitris Glezos Founder CEO, Transifex https://www.transifex.com/ ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- Dimitris Glezos Founder CEO, Transifex https://www.transifex.com/ ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:25:41AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves ChibonA wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering https://issues.mediagoblin.org/ticket/913 For the record, I support the move away from Transifex and will relay the sad news to the projects where I have before advice for it. The question is of course moving to what? That's something I cannot advice on atm. Pierre ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Transifex has become proprietary
Hi Unfortunately it looks like Transifex has become proprietary and Fedora moving to using Transifex.com has been cited as one of the reasons why it wasn't important anymore for them to maintain a open source version. https://github.com/transifex/transifex/issues/206#issuecomment-15243207 Should we consider alternatives? Rahul ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:09:05AM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi Unfortunately it looks like Transifex has become proprietary and Fedora moving to using Transifex.com has been cited as one of the reasons why it wasn't important anymore for them to maintain a open source version. https://github.com/transifex/transifex/issues/206#issuecomment-15243207 Should we consider alternatives? What are they? Pierre ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
It's a good thing that this came up, it'd be nice to have a clear decision from the Fedora part. I explained in detail the log reasoning behind the decision to stop maintaining the open-source branch in the GitHub issue Rahul provided. In the meantime, the Transifex team is happy to be donating one of the bigger plans to Fedora for free (which supports sharing of teams, Transl. Memory and glossary between teams), and we'll continue to do so. -d On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Unfortunately it looks like Transifex has become proprietary and Fedora moving to using Transifex.com has been cited as one of the reasons why it wasn't important anymore for them to maintain a open source version. https://github.com/transifex/transifex/issues/206#issuecomment-15243207 Should we consider alternatives? Rahul ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- Dimitris Glezos Founder CEO, Transifex https://www.transifex.com/ ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
2014-07-03 18:09 GMT+04:00 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com: Hi Unfortunately it looks like Transifex has become proprietary and Fedora moving to using Transifex.com has been cited as one of the reasons why it wasn't important anymore for them to maintain a open source version. https://github.com/transifex/transifex/issues/206#issuecomment-15243207 Should we consider alternatives? Why should we? A vast majority of us are happy GitHub / Facebook / Twitter / Google users and it's a happy marriage so far (at least for GitHub). We should clearly distinguish between a service / API and a data - an openness of a service is entirely different from an openness of a data or source code. GNOME developers got the message and they are constantly improving integration with the open user services with a proprietary code. We must do the same and better integrate our infrastructure with open services built with proprietary software (GitHub + Bugzilla, GitHub + fedmsg, GitHub + fedorahosted). -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
RE: Transifex has become proprietary
Hi Dimitris! I’m a little bit disappointed about this step, especially, since I’m quite sure there would have been other solutions. I hope you mean it serious, that you want to support the (large) Fedora community with a bigger plan for free! Else… Well… You know how important it is for us Fedora (and Red Hat) fellows that we’re building (on) F/LOSS! It has been and will always be. Therefore I do completely understand that some people on this list cry out loud now and ask for alternatives (although none come to my mind immediately). All the best to you and your business, Oliver From: infrastructure-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:infrastructure-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Dimitris Glezos Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:21 PM To: Fedora Infrastructure Subject: Re: Transifex has become proprietary It's a good thing that this came up, it'd be nice to have a clear decision from the Fedora part. I explained in detail the log reasoning behind the decision to stop maintaining the open-source branch in the GitHub issue Rahul provided. In the meantime, the Transifex team is happy to be donating one of the bigger plans to Fedora for free (which supports sharing of teams, Transl. Memory and glossary between teams), and we'll continue to do so. -d On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Unfortunately it looks like Transifex has become proprietary and Fedora moving to using Transifex.com has been cited as one of the reasons why it wasn't important anymore for them to maintain a open source version. https://github.com/transifex/transifex/issues/206#issuecomment-15243207 Should we consider alternatives? Rahul ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- Dimitris Glezos Founder CEO, Transifex https://www.transifex.com/ ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Hi, On 07/03/2014 07:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: What are they? I haven't spent a lot of time looking up alternatives but I am aware of the following: http://zanata.org/ developed by Red Hat If we are looking for alternatives then I will say we should consider Zanata. I think OpenStack also affected by transifex which became closed source. They started discussing[1] [2] this issue. Regards, Parag Nemade [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-i18n/2013-October/000223.html [2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-i18n/2014-April/000529.html ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
Re: Transifex has become proprietary
Oliver, Transifex is already offering a larger plan for Fedora for free for a couple of years now, and we'll continue to do so. We're proud of our origins and are respectful and thankful for all the support Transifex has had from Fedora. I still remember when we were trying to decide on a name for Transifex in #fedora-admin. =) -d On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Oliver Falk oli...@linux-kernel.at wrote: Hi Dimitris! I’m a little bit disappointed about this step, especially, since I’m quite sure there would have been other solutions. I hope you mean it serious, that you want to support the (large) Fedora community with a bigger plan for free! Else… Well… You know how important it is for us Fedora (and Red Hat) fellows that we’re building (on) F/LOSS! It has been and will always be. Therefore I do completely understand that some people on this list cry out loud now and ask for alternatives (although none come to my mind immediately). All the best to you and your business, Oliver *From:* infrastructure-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto: infrastructure-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] *On Behalf Of *Dimitris Glezos *Sent:* Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:21 PM *To:* Fedora Infrastructure *Subject:* Re: Transifex has become proprietary It's a good thing that this came up, it'd be nice to have a clear decision from the Fedora part. I explained in detail the log reasoning behind the decision to stop maintaining the open-source branch in the GitHub issue Rahul provided. In the meantime, the Transifex team is happy to be donating one of the bigger plans to Fedora for free (which supports sharing of teams, Transl. Memory and glossary between teams), and we'll continue to do so. -d On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Unfortunately it looks like Transifex has become proprietary and Fedora moving to using Transifex.com has been cited as one of the reasons why it wasn't important anymore for them to maintain a open source version. https://github.com/transifex/transifex/issues/206#issuecomment-15243207 Should we consider alternatives? Rahul ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- Dimitris Glezos Founder CEO, Transifex https://www.transifex.com/ ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure -- Dimitris Glezos Founder CEO, Transifex https://www.transifex.com/ ___ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
