Transifex has become proprietary

[Rahul Sundaram]

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

[Dimitris Glezos]

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  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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Oliver Falk]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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  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
[e-mail]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Dimitris Glezos]

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  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:* [e-mail] [mailto:
> [e-mail]] *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  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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
> --
>
> Dimitris Glezos
> Founder & CEO, Transifex
> https://www.transifex.com/
>
> infrastructure mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
> infrastructure mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Oliver Falk]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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  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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 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  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
[e-mail]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Miroslav Suchý]

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.

[Dimitris Glezos]

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  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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Miroslav Suchý]

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

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

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

[Rahul Sundaram]

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

[Parag Nemade]

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

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

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

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:11:45 +0200
Pierre-Yves Chibon  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?

kevin

[Marco Grigull]

-----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
>  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 / [phone]
> -----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-----

[Tiansworld]

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.

[Robyn Bergeron]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Fenzi" 
> To: [e-mail]
> 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  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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Marcelo Barbosa]

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  wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kevin Fenzi" 
> > To: [e-mail]
> > 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  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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
> --
> trans mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

[Zoltan Hoppar]

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 :
> 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:
> 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.
> 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  wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Kevin Fenzi" 
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > 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  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
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
> >
> > --
> > trans mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>
> --
> trans mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

[Marcel Ribeiro Dantas]

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.

[Marcelo Barbosa]

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 <
[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

[Noriko Mizumoto]

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" 
> > To: [e-mail]
> > 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  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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
>
> --
> trans mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

[Marcelo Barbosa]

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 
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" 
> > > To: [e-mail]
> > > 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  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
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
> >
> > --
> > trans mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>
> --
> trans mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

[Isaac Rooskov]

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" 
To: [e-mail], "Fedora Translation Project List" 
Cc: "Fedora Infrastructure" 
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 < [e-mail] > 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" < [e-mail] > 
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 < [e-mail] > 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

[Noriko Mizumoto]

(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
> <[e-mail] > 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" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         To: infrastructure@lists.__fedoraproject.org
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         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 <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:[e-mail]>
>         https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/__infrastructure
>         <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure>
>
>     --
>     trans mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>     <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>
>
>
> --
> trans mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
> <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>

[Carlos Munoz]

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" 
To: "Marcelo Barbosa" 
Cc: "Fedora Infrastructure" , "Fedora Translation Project List" 
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
> <[e-mail] > 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" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         To: infrastructure@lists.__fedoraproject.org
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         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 <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:[e-mail]>
>         https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/__infrastructure
>         <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure>
>
>     --
>     trans mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
>     <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>
>
>
> --
> trans mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
> <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>

--
trans mailing list
[e-mail]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

[Marcelo Barbosa]

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  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" 
> To: "Marcelo Barbosa" 
> Cc: "Fedora Infrastructure" ,
> "Fedora Translation Project List" 
> 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
> > <[e-mail] > 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" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]
> > >
> >         To: infrastructure@lists.__fedoraproject.org
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >         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 <[e-mail]
> >         <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:[e-mail]>
> >         https://admin.fedoraproject.
>
> __org/mailman/listinfo/__infrastructure
> >         <
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure%3E
> >     --
> >     trans mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:
>
> [e-mail]>
> >     https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
> >     <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>
> >
> >
> > --
> > trans mailing list
> > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/trans
> > <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>
>
> --
> trans mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/trans

[Kevin Fenzi]

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

[Marcelo Barbosa]

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  wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000
> Noriko Mizumoto  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

[Parag Nemade]

Hi all,

On 07/11/2014 10:50 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000
> Noriko Mizumoto  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.

[Noriko Mizumoto]

(2014年07月12日 03:20), Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000
> Noriko Mizumoto  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

[Tommy He]

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_P...

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Noriko Mizumoto 
wrote:
> (2014年07月12日 03:20), Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000
> > Noriko Mizumoto  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?
>
> Thanks
>
> noriko
> > kevin
>
> infrastructure mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:23:00 +1000
Noriko Mizumoto  wrote:
> (2014年07月12日 03:20), Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000
> > Noriko Mizumoto  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

[Noriko Mizumoto]

<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

[Robert Mayr]

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

[Peter Lemenkov]

2014-07-03 18:09 GMT+04:00 Rahul Sundaram :
> 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).

[Kévin Raymond]

> > 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.

[Michael Scherer]

Le jeudi 03 juillet 2014 à 18:22 +0400, Peter Lemenkov a écrit :
> 2014-07-03 18:09 GMT+04:00 Rahul Sundaram :
> > 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.

It would feel wrong to see Fedora endorsing the move from open to closed
by staying there and acting as if this was normal. It is one thing to
not have the ressources to have code being usable outside of your
installation. it is another to say that because this is too much effort,
you must close it.

If you have the API but not the code, that's like if you have a .so with
a ABI, but not the code. You can use it, but you cannot modify and fix
bugs there, forcing to work around stuff. And in the case of a hosted
platform, it is even worst since you depend on the upgrade schedule of
the platform.

So you can work on supporting the API and a gateway. But having this as
our primary platform feel quite wrong, and send the wrong message about
our values. If we cared only about API and not the code, we would ship
binary drivers and flash.