Re: tiket #86
by Dmitry Kolesov
Hello Toshio.
It is channges for the pkgdb-client what I did if I understood You right:
200c200,203
< pkgdb.clone_branch(package, branch, options.masterBranch)
---
> if options.masterBranch:
> pkgdb.clone_branch(package, branch, options.masterBranch)
> else:
> pkgdb.clone_branch(package, branch, 'devel')
-Dmitry
14 years, 7 months
Outage Notification - 2009-02-21 14:00 UTC
by Mike McGrath
There will be an outage starting at 2009-02-21 14:00 UTC, which will last
approximately 1 hour.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2009-02-21 14:00 UTC'
Affected Services:
Buildsystem
CVS / Source Control
Database
DNS
Fedora Hosted
Fedora People
Fedora Talk
Mail
Mirror System
Torrent
Translation Services
Websites
Unaffected Services:
None
Ticket Link:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1199
Reason for Outage:
Rebooting all the servers to take in new kernel update. You will note
this will take place 1 hour _before_ the koji update and fsck which is
scheduled for the entire weekend. This is another friendly reminder of
that.
Contact Information:
Please join #fedora-admin in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to
track the status of this outage.
14 years, 7 months
Intro and an apology
by Thierry
Apologies for hijacking a thread....
Hi all,
my name is Thierry and while I attempted getting involved circa 2 years
ago [1] life took its toll in the form of redundancy with its aftermath
and international moves so, now that I am (somewhat) back in control,
I would love to finally get on with it and help.
As the message referenced below states I have been involved with
sysadmin for a reasonably long time and believe I can help.
My current occupation deals with a full overhaul of the monitoring
infrastructure for a public service using Nagios and a lot of packaging
on the side...
I have read the GettingStarted, my FAS username is thierry.
cheer
Thierry
[1]
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2006-November/msg00095.html
14 years, 7 months
introduction
by Jony Cohen
Hi, my name is Jony
I'm 24 and have a B.Sc in math & computer science
I'm working as a sysadmin/sysdba on *nux\Oracle envirment for the last 5
years (the *nix includes RHEL 4,5, HP-UX, Tru64)
I've worked with clusters, web application servers and databases, where the
main focus was on the DB and clusters.
I know python, perl, C, C++, Java, PL\SQL and of course bash, tcsh, awk...
I guess my expirence as an Oracle DBA is not much of a use in your
envirment...
my user name in FAS is cohenjo
I would like to join the following groups sysadmin-devel and sysadmin-dba (I
understand that the 2nd group is restricted, than lets start with devel...)
I guess NOC and tools would fit also...
I'd like to contribute any way I can... just let me know what i can do :)
- Jony
14 years, 7 months
Plan for L10n for Fedora 11
by Dimitris Glezos
I'm very happy to announce that we've now landed support for translation
statistics in Transifex.
Lately we've been working heavily in re-writing Transifex and getting v0.5 in
the best shape possible for Fedora 11. Being 3 weeks ahead of the string
freeze, we have plenty of time to test statistics on Transifex 0.5-devel.
For Fedora 11, my plan is to switch the old DL for Tx 0.5-devel for
statistics, and continue to use the proven Tx 0.3 for submissions. I've
requested [1] a publictest instance from the Infrastructure Group to install
it and start putting data and testing it.
[1]: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1191
To allow 2 weeks of testing, the instance should be ready by 23/2. When we
see that everything works out as it should, we can discontinue the old DL.
Our goal with Transifex 0.5 is to include support for both submissions and
statistics, and this way we can put aside our old version of Damned Lies which
is presenting outdated translations. Since only the commits are missing from
Tx 0.5-final, it'll be out in 3-4 weeks, and at that point we go on and test
submissions too, while having Tx 0.3 as a backup solution.
Some of the advantages of this approach is that using the statistics from Tx
0.5-devel does not even require hook-up with FAS (only submissions require
authentication), we have a smoother upgrade path for Django/v0.5 and we have a
codebase we know inside-out to build/invest on.
On our roadmap post v0.5:
- 0.5: Submissions to email,VCSs, probably bugzilla
- Comments everywhere
- Full API
- Integration with Bugzilla eg. for auto-closing of bugs
- Workflow functionality (lock a file, resolve bugs, request translation
review and others, comments)
- Fine-grained permissions on a per collection, release, projects, component,
language and file basis
- Support for people Teams and user groups
- Support for additional i18n formats (mozilla)
Comments, suggestions?
-δ
--
Dimitris Glezos
Jabber ID: glezos(a)jabber.org, GPG: 0xA5A04C3B
http://dimitris.glezos.com/
"He who gives up functionality for ease of use
loses both and deserves neither." (Anonymous)
--
14 years, 7 months
Re: Plan for L10n for Fedora 11
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen
----- "Piotr Drąg" <piotrdrag(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Please just note that DL is working perfectly in last few days after
> cache rebuild and it should display correct and updated statistics
> now.
and since last week Asgeir has been busy working on updating Fedora's DL to the latest Django codebase from upstream, which is already running well for Gnome.
Jens
14 years, 7 months
Needed: mod_wsgi SOP
by Toshio Kuratomi
Anyone here want to write up a short SOP on deploying a mod_wsgi
application? FAS and Bodhi configuration in puppet can serve as a
reference for doing this and lmacken, ricky, and I can answer questions.
It can be short and other people can expand on it later.
We don't need to go into details about creating the wsgi script
(although a little bit can't hurt) but mainly focusing on how to
construct the apache config file. What directory to place the wsgi
script in, etc.
This would complement the present TurboGears and Supervisor SOPs.
-Toshio
14 years, 7 months
Re: Plan for L10n for Fedora 11
by Asgeir Frimannsson
----- "Dimitris Glezos" <dimitris(a)glezos.com> wrote:
> I'm very happy to announce that we've now landed support for
> translation
> statistics in Transifex.
>
> Lately we've been working heavily in re-writing Transifex and getting
> v0.5 in
> the best shape possible for Fedora 11. Being 3 weeks ahead of the
> string
> freeze, we have plenty of time to test statistics on Transifex
> 0.5-devel.
>
> For Fedora 11, my plan is to switch the old DL for Tx 0.5-devel for
> statistics, and continue to use the proven Tx 0.3 for submissions.
> I've
> requested [1] a publictest instance from the Infrastructure Group to
> install
> it and start putting data and testing it.
>
> [1]: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1191
>
> To allow 2 weeks of testing, the instance should be ready by 23/2.
> When we
> see that everything works out as it should, we can discontinue the old
> DL.
>
> Our goal with Transifex 0.5 is to include support for both submissions
> and
> statistics, and this way we can put aside our old version of Damned
> Lies which
> is presenting outdated translations. Since only the commits are
> missing from
> Tx 0.5-final, it'll be out in 3-4 weeks, and at that point we go on
> and test
> submissions too, while having Tx 0.3 as a backup solution.
>
> Some of the advantages of this approach is that using the statistics
> from Tx
> 0.5-devel does not even require hook-up with FAS (only submissions
> require
> authentication), we have a smoother upgrade path for Django/v0.5 and
> we have a
> codebase we know inside-out to build/invest on.
First of all, setting up a test-instance of Transifex 0.5alpha is a good start, so a big +1 from me. You should probably think of a migration script for transferring the data as well. I would suggest [1] as a good starting point for this, as it is based on Django and gets you quickly up and running.
That said, I have a number of concerns with this approach. Just a few weeks back you noted that 0.5 wouldn't be ready in time for F11, and that a good approach would be to migrate to the new Django-based Damned Lies for F11. Hence, I have spent roughly a week worth of development on this now, and I am announcing a public test period for this by the end of this week. The changes we have made to the upstream Gnome version include Fedora-theming (similar to the existing instance), FAS authentication for translators in the cvsl10n group, proper VCS locking and improvements to the way vcs sandboxes are managed, and now the last bit involves support for publican statistics (for e.g. release notes and selinux-guide).
However, I have no issue with throwing that work away if we can demonstrate that Tx 0.5 will serve the needs of the L10N project better in the given time-frame. My main concern is the translators and their work flow, and for F11 we owe translators a less crap system than what we've been using for the last two releases. My secondary concern is maintainability, and the core of my changes to DL has been ensuring that it doesn't fail as often, and providing better information when it fails.
Some of the benefits with the new Django-based DL:
- Translation teams can be better organized (Does Tx even have team pages?)
- Translators can indicate that they are working on a specific file
- Options of using a Translator->Reviewer->Committer work flow, I suspect linking up the actual commit functionality (migrating it from Tx 03 to DL) is less than a day's work.
- Django based DL has been in production upstream (Gnome L10N) for more than 3 months
So the gist of my message is that we should first look at the how the translation work flow changes by using these two tools. As I see it, we have four options:
1) Tx 0.5 for stats, Tx 0.5 for commits (not implemented yet)
2) Tx 0.5 for stats, Tx 0.3 for commits
3) DjL for stats, Tx 0.3 for commits
4) DjL for stants, DjL for commits (not implemented yet)
So far I'm a few days away from completing (3), and should also be able to get (4) done by early next week. If I can be convinced of a clear roadmap for (1) I'd be happy to help out with that, provided I can see the benefit to the translators with this approach. However, I am a bit afraid that option (2) might hurt Tx more than it gains in the long run. Why not focus on getting Tx 0.5 production ready and in shape to become a great translation platform, rather than simply rushing it in in time for F11?
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but *it is* great to finally see a test instance of Django-based Tx, so don't get me wrong, and I'm guessing a test instance of both systems will make it easier for us to find the best approach for F11 L10N. I know there have been plans of merging the Django-based Tx with DL as well, perhaps this might be a way of developing a migration-path in that direction as well, as I'm worried that the longer these applications stay separate with active development on both sides, the harder it's going to be to get e.g. Tx accepted for use in Gnome.
cheers,
asgeir
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/damned-lies-fedora/browser/stats/management/comm...
14 years, 7 months
