[PATCH 1/3] Musicians Guide - update docbook revnumber format
by Simon Clark
Update the first docbook revnumber in Revision_History.xml to use - as a separator instead of . in order to prevent a Publican build error.
---
en-US/Revision_History.xml | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/en-US/Revision_History.xml b/en-US/Revision_History.xml
index 1eb6a7a..dfdd34d 100644
--- a/en-US/Revision_History.xml
+++ b/en-US/Revision_History.xml
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
<simpara>
<revhistory>
<revision>
- <revnumber>0.0</revnumber>
+ <revnumber>0-0</revnumber>
<date>27 July 2010</date>
<author>
<firstname>Christopher</firstname>
9 years, 8 months
[PATCH 1/2] Update revnumber format in Amateur Radio Guide file Revision_History.xml
by Simon Clark
Updated the revnumber of the most recent revision in
Revision_History.xml from 19.1 to 19-1 in order to prevent a Publican
build error.
---
en-US/Revision_History.xml | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/en-US/Revision_History.xml b/en-US/Revision_History.xml
index acd02ee..9b63149 100644
--- a/en-US/Revision_History.xml
+++ b/en-US/Revision_History.xml
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
<simpara>
<revhistory>
<revision>
- <revnumber>19.1</revnumber>
+ <revnumber>19-1</revnumber>
<date>August 21, 2013</date>
<author>
<firstname>Eric</firstname>
--
1.8.4.2
9 years, 8 months
Recent Purge of Content "per Fedora Legal"
by Christopher Antila
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hi:
I'm just wondering what's going on with the recent purge of content "per
Fedora Legal." Why is this happening now? Who is provoking it? Why are there
no entries in the Revision History? What exactly are you trying to remove?
(Because I don't think you're getting all of it in the Musicians' Guide).
I'm in favour of following guidelines from Fedora Legal, but I don't
understand why three-year-old documents are being revised without notice,
explanation, or obvious record, either for guide owners or the community at
large.
Thanks,
Christopher.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=zi1G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 8 months
Re: Source string contextualization
by Nilamdyuti Goswami
On 27-01-2014 02:08 অপৰাহ্ন, pravin.d.s(a)gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On 24 January 2014 17:52, Nilamdyuti Goswami <ngoswami(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:ngoswami@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> While translating some of the fedora packages we often come across
> some source strings whose context or meaning is not clear. This
> results in wrong translations which is discovered later while
> using the actual application. This in turn effects the concerned
> application.
>
> To solve this issue, we have formed a Fedora SIG named "Source
> String Contextualizing Group" [1] aimed at
> providing concise yet meaningful description of the concerned
> source strings in the source code itself to ensure the correctness
> and quality in the resulting translations.
>
> We welcome feedback and suggestions.
>
>
> I liked this.
>
> I think this should become habit/protocol for translation community
> over a period. Whenever one find any confusing string, they should
> report it back to developer saying "we need context" Or they can give
> patch or suggestion for same.
>
> If every translator keeps on following it, in long term we will
> definitely have term with good information.
>
> Same time more information is not required for each and every word,
> only for confusing terms. It make this task more achievable.
>
> Regards,
> Pravin Satpute
Thanks Pravin. We hope it's implementation can help us yield quality
translations.
Regards,
Nilamdyuti
9 years, 8 months
Fedora Docs Meeting Reminder 1400UTC 27JAN2013
by Pete Travis
Come join us for an internet meeting! The gang will huddle up in
#fedora-meeting on freenode at 1400UTC.
--
-- Pete Travis
- Fedora Docs Project Leader
- 'randomuser' on freenode
- immanetize(a)fedoraproject.org
9 years, 8 months
Fwd: Re: Lack of documentation for Fedora configuration setups - NFS example
by Pete Travis
Passing this along to the list for Shawn, who was not subscribed:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Lack of documentation for Fedora configuration setups -
NFS example
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 00:04:54 -0700
From: Pete Travis <lists(a)petetravis.com>
To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases
<test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
CC: docs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
On 01/26/2014 11:01 PM, Shawn Starr wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> It's been brought up on IRC and I've noticed this also but our
documentation on configuration setup types has fallen behind.
>
> For example:
>
>
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html/Storage_Administration...
>
> NFS configuration is now different with systemd but we don't document
this anywhere for Fedora 19/20/etc.
>
> Is there any BZ tickets open for this issue?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shawn
>
>
>
Yes, there is an open ticket[1] for the issue. Hopefully the guide
owner or a volunteer will have a chance to get started soon. This kind
of feedback is helpful, so if you have more specific feedback please do
open a new bug or comment on an existing one.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018500
9 years, 8 months
Re: Software Administration Guide and "forbidden content"
by Christopher Antila
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 23 January 2014 11:18:01 Pete Travis wrote:
> Hi Guillermo,
>
> I came home last night and was met with a request on IRC from nb to remove
> content referencing rpmfusion from the F14 Software Administration and
> Musicians Guide. He was tasked to this by spot/Fedora Legal via IRC as
> well, probably precipitated by the discussion on advisory-board@ .
>
> I thought a bit about the legal implications and the potential publicity
> fallout of an engaged debate over our content, and in a knee-jerk reaction,
> removed references to rpmfusion from web.git. Nick had prepped a patch for
> the Musicians Guide that I merged forward. The Storage Administration Guide
> clearly needed more work, and I unpublished it from F14 forward for now.
>
> So, I would like your thoughts on how to move forward. I can probably apply
> some regex to substitute nonfunctional example repos, but my Spanish is
> laughable at best. I would like to work with you to resolve the immediate
> issue as best as we can. The same goes for the Musicians Guide.
>
> The greater question and its handling is a little distasteful, though. I
> dislike the communication through back channels and PMs, there has been
> nothing like a policy declaration from Fedora Legal, and I'm continuing
> that by changing content and mailing privately myself. As much as I
> believe in open communication, I really don't want to see some tech
> journalist or blogger pushing vitriolic headlines [...]. It seems better
> to deal with the immediate issue quickly and quietly, then have an open
> discussion on general policy once that work is done.
>
> Again, I apologize for yanking your work off docs.fp.o . I do want to make
> it right.
>
> --Pete
I feel this has been more than *a little* distasteful. There are so many small
things that could have been done differently to make this event more palatable.
At minimum, the authors of affected guides could have been notified just before
changes were made. A little better, the docs@ list should have been notified.
Better still, we could have been given some length of time to remove the
content ourselves.
As it is, at least in the Musicians' Guide, you didn't do a very good job (or
"spot missed a spot"). The chapter called "Planet CCRMA at Home" is about a
third-party repository. The Qtractor chapter still refers to RPMFusion, and
it's probably not the only one. Furthermore, as I previously mentioned, the
Musicians' Guide's "Revision History" was not amended to indicate this
certainly notable change in content.
Plus, I didn't publish the Musicians' Guide with Fedora 17 for a reason: it
was out-of-date, and I didn't have the resources to fix that. Now we've
published obsolete documentation for end-of-life software, making the web.git
repository about 250 MiB larger in the process.
- From my position, there's not much to debate. If Fedora Legal officially decides
(or has already officially decided) we can't refer to third-party repositories
from official Fedora documentation, we must remove references to third-party
repositories from official Fedora documentation. Until they do, or until someone
points to a previous decision, I'm disinclined to make changes that will
decrease the usefulness of the Musicians' Guide. A guide about software
management would also probably be less useful if references to third-party
repositories were removed.
In more than three years, nobody has said anything about the Fedora 14
editions of these documents until now. An extra week, letting the guide owners
sort things out, probably wouldn't have killed anyone. Unfortunately, a "knee-
jerk reaction" has killed openness and therefore accountability.
I've thought for a couple of days about how to respond. I accept what's
happened and I can understand why it happened. I bear no grudges, and I'm open
to making further changes as requested by the Fedora Legal team. I won't,
however, engage in a discussion "behind closed doors" unless: (1) the door is
clearly labeled, (2) the result of the conversation, along with the decision-
making process, is published publicly, and (3) we fear something greater than
tech bloggers.
Christopher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJS5XHFAAoJEAWCcTQ3FNFM3FwP/iV/5R27SJ142rbYm7M2pi9u
X+0lzb94hz9/j4FuFhmEUZS55/tua4uYa8p7Pj2/LKiPWiKrnPDF2LL0L2Nehtk6
xBPpiXicOSwIHXKabZ0eibhMUlNoatjtOTQnYb3SJPJzQEe3w3uOXszviw+b5wtV
p6xC4IA2y1utHLH2ARiYjGeocTOQQQJhJUYKf2f/6mR92PAt9MPeNOZnmUEDVoaq
zOPBo2bSnjWuxG0w+Oq//d3Ih0V2/kgp1vV6JkgO9WROTqfcuXQIUdz5J89IVCcP
vcVwW09aJv3PfarEpcmsitg5BNwOfhrHAA5QkUKxDe1UxFwlFvRYHnQ2R7H5kUnj
BAHBN+2DowwtgFBdHYDo94uylAQVUfwN59duhhVB8b4zz3VtBX3A2uqZrgEQ1U2H
DvJEwB8OxHYiO9VH8sKZ2dcB+A3RTJMXH6/rHUTn/0lbctkhzeEl5FZ3G78qosGF
LW0m7cZTbd4hAmlEfBeqgwP011kPZrZhTKD1MpxW6NyQfd/av4sPKYZBGp1dx59W
GBddLusskh8CWNtPtqllFtiyaiBv3pv79BITaOYeTnSrXbJaMuVDzBw+7TEJpTX4
5UgpskLLHB10sSBYB9T3Ole+vKDygUf6u8I62uehjWDmenx0zI8D0IKL2WUoUpE/
9NHLoZwShSOAu5b7td1i
=Mdle
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 8 months
[PATCH 2/2] Remove Amateur Radio Guide references to versioned package documentation directories
by Simon Clark
Following instructions in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs change the
per package documentation directory in /usr/share/doc to unversioned,
just containing the package's name (previously it contained both the
package's name and its version)
---
en-US/antenna-xnec2c.xml | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/en-US/antenna-xnec2c.xml b/en-US/antenna-xnec2c.xml
index 13cab64..fb23572 100644
--- a/en-US/antenna-xnec2c.xml
+++ b/en-US/antenna-xnec2c.xml
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@
<para>
More complete documentation is installed with the application and
may be found at <ulink type="http"
- url="file:///usr/share/doc/xnec2c-1.5/xnec2c.html" /> after the
+ url="file:///usr/share/doc/xnec2c/xnec2c.html" /> after the
application has been installed.
</para>
--
1.8.4.2
9 years, 8 months
Fwd: Re: #5214: Setup koji tags and repo for Docs
by Christopher Antila
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
This is a historic event!
- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: #5214: Setup koji tags and repo for Docs
Date: 22 January 2014, 05:24:43
From: Fedora Release Engineering <rel-eng(a)fedoraproject.org>
#5214: Setup koji tags and repo for Docs
- -----------------------------+-----------------------
Reporter: crantila | Owner: rel-eng@…
Type: task | Status: closed
Milestone: Fedora 20 Beta | Component: koji
Resolution: fixed | Keywords: docs
Blocked By: | Blocking:
- -----------------------------+-----------------------
Changes (by rlandmann):
* resolution: => fixed
* status: new => closed
Comment:
All done! Many thanks ausil -- working perfectly now :)
- --
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5214#comment:16>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
- -----------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=lNs7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
9 years, 8 months
#5214: Setup koji tags and repo for Docs
by Fedora Release Engineering
#5214: Setup koji tags and repo for Docs
-----------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: crantila | Owner: rel-eng@…
Type: task | Status: new
Milestone: Fedora 18 Alpha | Component: koji
Keywords: docs | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
-----------------------------+------------------------
Posted here as per [https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-
infrastructure/ticket/3320]
'''phenomenon'''
To support simpler and more robust updates to docs.fp.o, need to setup
koji to handle a new tag and repo for Docs.
'''implementation recommendation'''
<Sparks> What would be required to stand up a separate instance of koji
for Docs? <dgilmore> Sparks: why would you want a seperate instance?
<dgilmore> Sparks: i dont see any valid reason to do so <Sparks> dgilmore:
For the Docs website. Publican has the ability publish documentation from
packages (separate repo from the Fedora repo) for the website. We want to
replace the git repo that operates it now. <dgilmore> Sparks: and why does
that need a seperate koji? <Sparks> The git repo has gotten HUGE and is
becoming an issue. <dgilmore> Sparks: so, why does that mean a seperate
koji instance <dgilmore> Sparks: we could use a seperate tag and targets
in koji <dgilmore> i dont see why it would need its own koji <Sparks>
dgilmore: It's either that or try to get everyone setup as packagers.
<dgilmore> Sparks: get everyone setup as packagers <Sparks> dgilmore:
Except that they really won't be packagers. <dgilmore> Sparks: though you
dont need to be a a packager to get a koji cert <dgilmore> you just need
fas <dgilmore> Sparks: what would be the workflow? <Sparks> dgilmore:
Okay, and with that we can send packages through koji and tag them
separately? <Sparks> dgilmore: Basically we just tell Publican to build
the package and submit it to koji. The Publican software does all the
work. <dgilmore> Sparks: I still really dont know what your trying to do.
pretend im an idiot(not really that hard) and explain what it is and how
it should work <Sparks> dgilmore: I'm not far off... <Sparks> dgilmore: So
Publican will make an SRPM package, submit it to koji destined for a repo.
Our Publican backend will install those packages and publish the data to
the website. <Sparks> ...as I understand it <dgilmore> Sparks: so we would
need to set up seperate tags and tagets for it, defining a koji policy
allowing srpms to be built. likely we would add a new group to koji and
add people allowed to build docs to it and limit access to the
tags/targets to people in that group <dgilmore> Sparks: so its all doable
<Sparks> dgilmore: Well that's a lot easier. :) <Sparks> dgilmore: We
already have a group in FAS for people that should have access (docs-
publishers). Should I open a ticket? <dgilmore> Sparks: koji doesnt know
anything about fas <dgilmore> Sparks: please file a ticket. We wont be
able to make changes until after f17 is done <Sparks> dgilmore: That's
fine. We're not completely ready for the transition so after F17 would be
good. <Sparks> dgilmore: Thanks!
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5214>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
9 years, 8 months
