[publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx]

[Jeff Fearn]

On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 17:16 -0500, Deon Lackey wrote:
> I'm just curious: doesn't nixing transifex.net content effectively
> shut down translations? Or does it simply make it more difficult on
> Nick and Rudi but not change the ultimate process (meaning, the
> translations are still done on tx.net)? 

You can't use transifex.net without giving naming rights and such, so
without our consent there would be no Publican files in transifex.net.

In addition, even if they did host it against our will, none of it would
be committed in to the Publican SVN repo. I'd move project hosting if
this was not enforceable on fedora hosted.

> I'm not familiar with the Fedora translation process. What's the end
> result of this?

It means translators would need to commit directly to the SVN
repository. It is a simply matter of them applying for access via the
FAS pages, there are numerous people with access to grant such access.

Cheers, Jeff.

> Deon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> From: "Jeff Fearn" <jfearn at redhat.com>
> To: "Publican discussions" <publican-list at redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:57:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [publican-list] [Fwd: Re: r1722 - in
> trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx]
> 
> Just to clue people in on what has actually happened.
> 
> Fedora infrastructure has been running an instance of Transifex for
> some
> time. This installation has been plagued by terrible performance and
> an
> almost complete inability to maintain or upgrade it. AIUI almost all
> of
> these issues are related to the software itself.
> 
> Travel forward to recent times when Fedora decided not to host an
> instance anymore, because it's unmaintainable, and so decided to
> migrate
> hosted applications without going to the rather obvious step of asking
> the associated projects if it was OK to migrate them to a commercial
> entities site.
> 
> Now I for one am rather hesitant to move to a hosted commercial
> instance
> run by people who make software that a team of people can't update or
> maintain. I'm double hesitant when the whole migration process was
> done
> without public consultation with the projects themselves.
> 
> At this point I'm willing to wield my Project Leaders Veto on
> accepting
> transifex.net content. Giving commercial entities rights over our name
> and sources is a serious step, doing it without due consideration is
> rather foolish, and doing it on other peoples behalf is morally
> offensive and pretty much illegal.
> 
> Cheers, Jeff.
> 
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 06:13 -0600, Nick Bebout wrote:
> > Per jfearn's request, forwarding this to publican-list.
> > 
> > Nick
> > ---------------------------- Original Message
> ----------------------------
> > Subject: Re: r1722 - in trunk/publican-fedora: . .tx
> > From:    "Nick Bebout" <nick at bebout.net>
> > Date:    Tue, February 22, 2011 6:07 am
> > To:      "jfearn at redhat.com" <jfearn at redhat.com>
> > Cc:      "nb at fedoraproject.org" <nb at fedoraproject.org>
> >          "Ruediger Landmann" <rlandman at redhat.com>
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Fedora is now doing translations through transifex.net, instead of
> running
> > our own transifex instance.  The .tx/config are what maps
> "resources" in
> > the transifex site to the pot and po's in the source repository.
>  For what
> > it's worth, .tx/config would be needed, even if Fedora upgraded our
> > current transifex to 1.0 or higher.  The only difference would be
> the URL
> > at the top of the file. (the way I understand it is Fedora provides
> > translations for both publican and publican-fedora, but please
> correct me
> > if that is not true.)
> > 
> > We can live without having the .tx/config file stored in svn, but
> it'll be
> > harder because rudi and I (or whoever) will have to make our own
> copy (or
> > send each other a copy) before updating the pot on tx.net or pulling
> the
> > updated po's to update in svn.
> > 
> > I would request you allow the .tx/config files to be stored in svn
> again.
> > 
> > Nick
> > 
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > 
> > On Feb 21, 2011, at 23:41, Jeff Fearn <jfearn at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I am not happy with having content for commercial enterprises in
> the
> > > Publican repository. Doing so without discussing this on the
> Publican
> > > list is unacceptable, please start a discussion now.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Jeff.
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 04:12 +0000, nb at fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > >> Author: nb
> > >> Date: 2011-02-22 04:12:36 +0000 (Tue, 22 Feb 2011)
> > >> New Revision: 1722
> > >>
> > >> Added:
> > >>   trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/
> > >>   trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config
> > >> Log:
> > >> Add publican-fedora/.tx/config
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Added: trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config
> > >>
> ===================================================================
> > >> --- trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config
>  (rev 0)
> > >> +++ trunk/publican-fedora/.tx/config    2011-02-22 04:12:36 UTC
> (rev 1722)
> > >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> > >> +[main]
> > >> +host = https://www.transifex.net
> > >> +
> > >> +[publican-fedora.Feedback]
> > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Feedback.po
> > >> +source_file = pot/Feedback.pot
> > >> +source_lang = en
> > >> +
> > >> +[publican-fedora.Logos]
> > >> +file_filter = <lang>/Logos.po
> > >> +source_file = pot/Logos.pot
> > >> +source_lang = en
> > >> +
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > publican-list mailing list
> > publican-list at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list
> > Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> publican-list mailing list
> publican-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/publican-list
> Wiki: https://fedorahosted.org/publican
> 
> 
>