Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Shanky
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Past_Meetings [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Next_Meeting:_Tuesday.2C_18_Jun...
Shankar Prasad Venkateshbhat wrote:
Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Another round of +1 from me. FLSCo members, thoughts?
cheers Runa
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Runa Bhattacharjee runab@redhat.com wrote:
Shankar Prasad Venkateshbhat wrote:
Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Another round of +1 from me. FLSCo members, thoughts?
+1. We need to take some decisions and a meeting would help answer questions.
-d
On 10/13/2010 02:20 PM, Dimitris Glezos wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Runa Bhattacharjee runab@redhat.com wrote:
Shankar Prasad Venkateshbhat wrote:
Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Another round of +1 from me. FLSCo members, thoughts?
+1. We need to take some decisions and a meeting would help answer questions.
-d
+1 for me. just arrange it
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Mostafa lashar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 10/13/2010 02:20 PM, Dimitris Glezos wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Runa Bhattacharjee runab@redhat.com wrote:
Shankar Prasad Venkateshbhat wrote:
Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Another round of +1 from me. FLSCo members, thoughts?
+1. We need to take some decisions and a meeting would help answer questions.
-d
+1 for me. just arrange it
-- Mostafa Daneshvar
Fedora Ambassador
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
Why do we need one? Please, share your mind :) (at least, there is the transifex 0.7 issue, which is going to be solved soon (hope)).
shaiton さんは書きました:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Mostafa lashar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 10/13/2010 02:20 PM, Dimitris Glezos wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Runa Bhattacharjee runab@redhat.com wrote:
Shankar Prasad Venkateshbhat wrote:
Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Another round of +1 from me. FLSCo members, thoughts?
+1. We need to take some decisions and a meeting would help answer questions.
-d
+1 for me. just arrange it
-- Mostafa Daneshvar
Fedora Ambassador
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
Why do we need one? Please, share your mind :) (at least, there is the transifex 0.7 issue, which is going to be solved soon (hope)).
Sorry replying late. +1 for having a meeting, as we have not one for long. I think of a couple of agenda.
* Tx Upgrade Thank you so much to Doming and many of you, Tx is under upgrading to 0.9.0. Now, the decision needs to be made if translate.fp.o is upgraded to 1.0. Yes means we need resource for upgrading, No means we need to know what to do when 0.9.0 comes eol., I think..
* FLScO We have not had any election for long. How you think?
* Meeting The meeting is for translators. Do we need a meeting? How could we have a meeting to get maximum attendance? how often a meeting to be held?
noriko
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:43 AM, noriko noriko@fedoraproject.org wrote:
shaiton さんは書きました:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Mostafa lashar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 10/13/2010 02:20 PM, Dimitris Glezos wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Runa Bhattacharjee runab@redhat.com wrote:
Shankar Prasad Venkateshbhat wrote:
Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Another round of +1 from me. FLSCo members, thoughts?
+1. We need to take some decisions and a meeting would help answer questions.
-d
+1 for me. just arrange it
-- Mostafa Daneshvar
Fedora Ambassador
-- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
Why do we need one? Please, share your mind :) (at least, there is the transifex 0.7 issue, which is going to be solved soon (hope)).
Sorry replying late. +1 for having a meeting, as we have not one for long. I think of a couple of agenda.
- Tx Upgrade
Thank you so much to Doming and many of you, Tx is under upgrading to 0.9.0. Now, the decision needs to be made if translate.fp.o is upgraded to 1.0. Yes means we need resource for upgrading, No means we need to know what to do when 0.9.0 comes eol., I think..
Are you sure that it is *under upgrading*? Nobody answered at this question on the ticket. And I didn't get a chance to ask on irc. Furthermore, I can't see any discussions on the devel mailing list... neither in the infra one. That's why I have asked if it's not better to upgrade directly to TX 1.0.
- FLScO
We have not had any election for long. How you think?
- Meeting
The meeting is for translators. Do we need a meeting? How could we have a meeting to get maximum attendance? how often a meeting to be held?
-1 for me I am sure that many translators won't be able to join it. Ok, there are not so many translators reading the L10n irc chan, and not so many reading that, am sure. The question is probably first "who want to attends this meeting?". All that could be done at a meeting time, could be done on the mailing list. The mailing list is where the more translators could interact. We just need to take care of the thread. Therefore, for me, there should be one thread by important subject.
* At least one for "Do we need to upgrade to Transifex 1.0 or should we first upgrade to Tx 0.9.1?" (This thread would concern the infra.) I won't start it because I can't understand the need of upgrading only to tx 0.9 for the trans side.
shaiton wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:43 AM, noriko noriko@fedoraproject.org wrote:
-1 for me I am sure that many translators won't be able to join it. Ok, there are not so many translators reading the L10n irc chan, and not so many reading that, am sure. The question is probably first "who want to attends this meeting?". All that could be done at a meeting time, could be done on the mailing list. The mailing list is where the more translators could interact. We just need to take care of the thread. Therefore, for me, there should be one thread by important subject.
In the past, the FLP has been having IRC meetings to discuss on various topics. The discussions from mailing-lists were taken onto the IRC for quick resolution or new topics initiated in the meetings were further carried on in the mailing list. Besides, it was also a good opportunity for quite a few of the FLP members to get together. Not just to discuss burning issues, but also to build camaraderie in the group.
The meetings were never officially abandoned but somehow did not seem to happen regularly due to many reasons. The meeting page and the logs still exist on the Fedora wiki[1]. Given the geographical dispersion of the FLP member base, it was always expected settling on a suitable time was near impossible. Hence, after much deliberation on the mailing list meetings were scheduled on two different time slots to accommodate the timezones with majority of the volunteers.
The meetings have always been helpful in the past, and it would be good to see them revived again.
Thanks Runa
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings
On 10/19/2010 01:58 PM, Runa Bhattacharjee wrote:
In the past, the FLP has been having IRC meetings to discuss on various topics. The discussions from mailing-lists were taken onto the IRC for quick resolution or new topics initiated in the meetings were further carried on in the mailing list. Besides, it was also a good opportunity for quite a few of the FLP members to get together. Not just to discuss burning issues, but also to build camaraderie in the group.
Very much true. This will really help us to work as a group not just as individual contributor.
The meetings have always been helpful in the past, and it would be good to see them revived again.
+1 from me too!
cheers Shanky
2010/10/19 shaiton shaiton@fedoraproject.org:
- Tx Upgrade
Thank you so much to Doming and many of you, Tx is under upgrading to 0.9.0. Now, the decision needs to be made if translate.fp.o is upgraded to 1.0. Yes means we need resource for upgrading, No means we need to know what to do when 0.9.0 comes eol., I think..
Are you sure that it is *under upgrading*? Nobody answered at this question on the ticket.
Done.
And I didn't get a chance to ask on irc. Furthermore, I can't see any discussions on the devel mailing list... neither in the infra one.
I thought that somebody from #fedora-admin would make that ticket move on. :-( The packages only need a review by a packager.
k.r.
Domingo Becker (es)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Domingo Becker wrote:
2010/10/19 shaiton shaiton@fedoraproject.org:
- Tx Upgrade
Thank you so much to Doming and many of you, Tx is under upgrading to 0.9.0. Now, the decision needs to be made if translate.fp.o is upgraded to 1.0. Yes means we need resource for upgrading, No means we need to know what to do when 0.9.0 comes eol., I think..
Are you sure that it is *under upgrading*? Nobody answered at this question on the ticket.
Done.
And I didn't get a chance to ask on irc. Furthermore, I can't see any discussions on the devel mailing list... neither in the infra one.
I thought that somebody from #fedora-admin would make that ticket move on. :-( The packages only need a review by a packager.
What were the bug numbers again? I'm not a packager sponsor or I'd sponsor you but I'm sure we can find someone.
-Mike
2010/10/19 Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com:
What were the bug numbers again? I'm not a packager sponsor or I'd sponsor you but I'm sure we can find someone.
Hey Mike,
Let's use the fastest track for this ticket [1]. Just to remind you, the Transifex package in koji and some dependencies in Fedora-EPEL repo are not operatives to make a successful upgrade of Transifex. The ones that will work out of the box are in that ticket in comments 27 [2], 28 and 29.
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2389
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2389#comment:27
kind regards
Domingo Becker (es)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010, Domingo Becker wrote:
2010/10/19 Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com:
What were the bug numbers again? I'm not a packager sponsor or I'd sponsor you but I'm sure we can find someone.
Hey Mike,
Let's use the fastest track for this ticket [1]. Just to remind you, the Transifex package in koji and some dependencies in Fedora-EPEL repo are not operatives to make a successful upgrade of Transifex. The ones that will work out of the box are in that ticket in comments 27 [2], 28 and 29.
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2389
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2389#comment:27
Sorry I was meaning the bugzilla review numbers for the new packages. Go ahead and put those in the ticket.
-Mike
2010/10/19 shaiton shaiton@fedoraproject.org:
* At least one for "Do we need to upgrade to Transifex 1.0 or should we first upgrade to Tx 0.9.1?" (This thread would concern the infra.) I won't start it because I can't understand the need of upgrading only to tx 0.9 for the trans side.
I can think of at least one valid reason to refrain from upgrading to 1.0: it's a massive change in our current workflow, and furthermore, it would cause change in package maintainers workflow. 0.9.1 seems like a safe step for this moment, not mentioning that upgrade to 0.9.1 is required before we can move to 1.0 [1].
[1] http://help.transifex.net/technical/releases/1.0.html#migration
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Piotr Drąg piotrdrag@gmail.com wrote:
2010/10/19 shaiton shaiton@fedoraproject.org:
* At least one for "Do we need to upgrade to Transifex 1.0 or should we first upgrade to Tx 0.9.1?" (This thread would concern the infra.) I won't start it because I can't understand the need of upgrading only to tx 0.9 for the trans side.
I can think of at least one valid reason to refrain from upgrading to 1.0: it's a massive change in our current workflow, and furthermore, it would cause change in package maintainers workflow. 0.9.1 seems like a safe step for this moment, not mentioning that upgrade to 0.9.1 is required before we can move to 1.0 [1].
[1] http://help.transifex.net/technical/releases/1.0.html#migration
-- Piotr Drąg http://raven.pmail.pl/
Sure, I've read that. But the question is, will it be better to use Transifex 1.x than 0.9.1 at the end? If not, we should just stop using transifex and coming back using git... Why? Just because Transifex 0.9 will be out of date (yeah, I am thinking of future, but Fedora is innovation concerned.) [1] don't afraid me. What about you guys?
Using strings management system instead of file looks really great.
I understand that we have to think before acting. We just need to agree between translators, packagers and infra about transifex 1.0. But first, what about translators? What do you think guys? That's why I spoke about an other thread, we are quite off-topic here ;-).
[1] http://help.transifex.net/user-guide/one-dot-zero.html#how-does-this-affect-...
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:55:43PM +0530, Shankar Prasad Venkateshbhat wrote:
Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Shanky
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Past_Meetings [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Next_Meeting:_Tuesday.2C_18_Jun...
My suggestion: If the appointed weekly time is no longer useful, use http://whenisgood.net to set up a matrix of meeting time possibilities for the next L10n meeting. All FLSCo members should respond to that within, say, 48-72 hours and then the resulting time can be announced.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:55:43PM +0530, Shankar Prasad Venkateshbhat wrote:
Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Shanky
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Past_Meetings [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Next_Meeting:_Tuesday.2C_18_Jun...
My suggestion: If the appointed weekly time is no longer useful, use http://whenisgood.net to set up a matrix of meeting time possibilities for the next L10n meeting. All FLSCo members should respond to that within, say, 48-72 hours and then the resulting time can be announced.
-- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com -- trans mailing list trans@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
No, I mean, what do you think that should be discussed shortly? What subjects can't be easily discussed here ?
Paul W. Frields さんは書きました:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 03:55:43PM +0530, Shankar Prasad Venkateshbhat wrote:
Hi folks,
By looking at Past Meeting [1] and Next Meeting [2] sections it has been long time since any meeting happened. Are we planning to meet any where soon?
Shanky
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Past_Meetings [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Next_Meeting:_Tuesday.2C_18_Jun...
My suggestion: If the appointed weekly time is no longer useful, use http://whenisgood.net to set up a matrix of meeting time possibilities for the next L10n meeting. All FLSCo members should respond to that within, say, 48-72 hours and then the resulting time can be announced.
There are many +s for having a meeting, so I created the event. http://whenisgood.net/824kzs/results/gnj8km
noriko
On 11/11/2010 08:40 AM, noriko wrote:
There are many +s for having a meeting, so I created the event. http://whenisgood.net/824kzs/results/gnj8km
what's the agenda for the meeting?
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Mostafa lashar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 11/11/2010 08:40 AM, noriko wrote:
There are many +s for having a meeting, so I created the event.
hum, 6-7 people really concerned by that? There should be many people for this extraordinary meeting.
what's the agenda for the meeting?
feel free to update the wiki[1]
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Next_Meeting:_TBA
Kévin Raymond さんは書きました:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Mostafa lashar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 11/11/2010 08:40 AM, noriko wrote:
There are many +s for having a meeting, so I created the event.
hum, 6-7 people really concerned by that? There should be many people for this extraordinary meeting.
what's the agenda for the meeting?
feel free to update the wiki[1]
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/L10N_Meetings#Next_Meeting:_TBA
I will be out this week by Thursday (bne time) and be back on Friday. For those who will not be able to make time for a meeting, please please add your teams' opinion/concern and update the agenda.
noriko
As you've seen guys, meeting all really interrested/concerned people on irc is hard. We should really discuss only on the mailing list. I am sure that we are not only 4 concerned by the Fedora Project Localization.
But yeah, speaking by irc is friendlier.
Regards,
Kévin Raymond さんは書きました:
As you've seen guys, meeting all really interrested/concerned people on irc is hard. We should really discuss only on the mailing list. I am sure that we are not only 4 concerned by the Fedora Project Localization.
But yeah, speaking by irc is friendlier.
I was surprised that there are only four members responded, and it is hard to determine the best time from here. But I still prefer to have a meeting, which has been always friendly and effective.
As all know, we are most concerned with are the issues related to Transifex atm. Three tickets have been created and worked by several people.
[https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2389] All packages have been reviewed, and Doming is about to give a test. **Domingo, is this for upgrade to 0.9.1?
[https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2285] By Domingo, to upgrade and take advantages of Tx 0.9 and above, we need to create a Fedora Meta-project (replacement for Collections) and control all the translator access from there. **What is the plan? Let me know how I can be of assistance.
[https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2477] This ticket was created since the script to refresh the module's cache was not working from cron. Currently it seems not appearing. **If a refresh cache related problem experienced then it should be reported in this ticket.
noriko
On 11/23/2010 02:21 PM, noriko wrote:
I was surprised that there are only four members responded, and it is hard to determine the best time from here. But I still prefer to have a meeting, which has been always friendly and effective.
+1
I have recorded my response about the availability for the meeting.
Shanky