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 oliver@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-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto: infrastructure-bounces@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 metherid@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

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.

On 07/15/2014 10:41 PM, Dimitris Glezos wrote:

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.

I'm not sure you correctly understand me.

I give you an example: I am working on Copr [1], which is provided as service. But I provide source codes [2] as well, despite the fact that there is *no one* else running other instance of Copr. In fact - if you would like to start new instance of Copr you will have hard times and it will take you non-trivial amount of time. Some of the data/code/information are in copr.git. Some are in public Fedora infrastructure git and some are in private infrastructure.git. My goal is just one. Operate that one instance [1]. And providing sources is "just" side effect. However I'm not spending my time and resources to tune up the code, so it can be run somewhere else. If somebody would be interested in running separate instance and (s)he encounter some obstacles, then it would be *his* work. His work to contribute and maintain it. And despite all of these - people still contribute to Copr. By ideas. By code, although I have to verify it. And it is open source project.

To conclude - I suggested that you provide your current source (sans passwords and other data you feel as confidential) while stating that this is code for *your* instance. And if somebody wants to run *their* instance, there must be done some work, but nobody from your team will do it. People are on their own.

[1] http://copr.fedoraproject.org/ [2] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/copr.git

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

Translatewiki which is apparently what MediaGoblin is considering

https://issues.mediagoblin.org/ticket/913

Rahul

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

-----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 pingou@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

----- Original Message -----

From: "Kevin Fenzi" kevin@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 pingou@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.ht... 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

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 firemanxbr@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 rbergero@redhat.com wrote:

...

----- Original Message -----

...

From: "Kevin Fenzi" kevin@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 pingou@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.ht... 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 trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

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-...

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 < ribeirodantasdm@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 trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

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 noriko@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" kevin@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 pingou@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 trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

(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 <noriko@fedoraproject.org mailto:noriko@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" <kevin@scrye.com <mailto:kevin@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 <pingou@pingoured.fr
        <mailto:pingou@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?


    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
    <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
        <mailto:infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org>
        https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/__infrastructure
        <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure>

    --
    trans mailing list
    trans@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:trans@lists.fedoraproject.org>
    https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
    <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>


--
trans mailing list
trans@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:trans@lists.fedoraproject.org>
https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
<https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>

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 camunoz@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" noriko@fedoraproject.org To: "Marcelo Barbosa" firemanxbr@fedoraproject.org Cc: "Fedora Infrastructure" infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org, "Fedora Translation Project List" trans@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 <noriko@fedoraproject.org mailto:noriko@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" <kevin@scrye.com <mailto:kevin@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 <pingou@pingoured.fr
        <mailto:pingou@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?


    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

...

    <

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2014-July/014475.ht...

...

    is the original mail Rahul posted on the subject.

    -Robyn


        kevin

        _________________________________________________
        infrastructure mailing list
        infrastructure@lists.__fedoraproject.org
        <mailto:infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org>
        https://admin.fedoraproject.

__org/mailman/listinfo/__infrastructure

...

        <

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure%3E

...

    --
    trans mailing list
    trans@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:

trans@lists.fedoraproject.org>

...

    https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
    <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>


--
trans mailing list
trans@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:trans@lists.fedoraproject.org>
https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
<https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>

-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

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 kevin@scrye.com wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000 Noriko Mizumoto noriko@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

(2014年07月12日 03:20), Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000 Noriko Mizumoto noriko@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

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:23:00 +1000 Noriko Mizumoto noriko@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 noriko@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

Il 04/lug/2014 10:12 "Pierre-Yves Chibon" pingou@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)

...

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.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

Simply because we are proud to build Fedora with Open Source Software. It is not only needed to provide source doing FOSS, but also considering using the tools you are fighting for.

It's a shame that TX moved to proprietary.

I consider joining back the fight. Oh, it's probably not a fight, I like the TX team ;) And… Ok, some people still prefer using GitHub because it's convenient. But there are alternatives.

Speaking L10n, there is still the Zanata instance at Red Hat, were some sources are available for Fedora teams (at least one doc).

I am not feeling the right to help decision, however I couldn't stay on the shadow.