L10N migration to transifex.net

[Ricky Zhou]

On 2011-02-21 01:33:01 PM, Ruediger Landmann wrote:
> This decision has greatly saddened and disappointed me. With all respect 
> to Dmitris and his team, to me, it seems like Fedora is giving up a key 
> part of our infrastructure and our independence.
First, let me say - I'm happy as long as the work gets done to make
a Transifex instance usable and maintained for translators.

But one question - can you quantify exactly what we lose with switching to
transifex.net?  We discussed this in infrastructure, and the conclusion
was that we only lose FAS auth (and we already spoke to spot about any
CLA issues, and he said that it shouldn't be an issue).  In return, we
get an actually maintained Transifex instance that won't be (often)
unusable and slow for translators.

What independence do we have with running our own instance?  We don't
have the people to maintain/upgrade it, and while we have the freedom to
make code changes to our instance, we certainly don't have the manpower
to actually make that happen.  On the other hand, Dimitris and other
Transifex developers have already been willing to put time into helping
us with our instance, taking bug reports and patches from us, and making
sure that we have good service on transifex.net.

The infrastructure team is already really happy not to have to put
manpower into running bugzilla.redhat.com, and the way I see it, having
a similar arrangement with transifex.net would be great for everybody.

Thanks,
Ricky
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20110220/7384adf3/attachment.bin