Hello,
There is a lot of confusion on the L10n group on where some of our docs are translated. At some point it seems that some docs owners have decided (or were asked) to put their projects on a Zanata server instead of Transifex.
https://fedora.transifex.com/ https://fedora.transifex.com/projects/p/fedora/access/outsource/
Can you please shed some more light on the topic?
-d
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Dimitri Glezos glezos@transifex.com wrote:
Can you please shed some more light on the topic?
I think a couple projects were moved because of technical issues. I found this:
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.document...
that refers to another thread I could not find right now.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com wrote:
I think a couple projects were moved because of technical issues. I found this:
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.document...
There is an open ticket on the Tx Client that awaits for some feedback.
https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client/issues/25
-d
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:50:25 +0100 Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Dimitri Glezos glezos@transifex.com wrote:
Can you please shed some more light on the topic?
I think a couple projects were moved because of technical issues. I found this:
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.document...
that refers to another thread I could not find right now.
We mention the L10n management system for each guide in this table:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_Project_guides_table
I think that guide owners have been able to keep that page reasonably up-to-date.
Guide owners, if there is anything outdated on that wiki page, please be bold and fix it.
Thanks, Petr Kovar
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:48:01PM +0100, Petr Kovar wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:50:25 +0100 Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Dimitri Glezos glezos@transifex.com wrote:
Can you please shed some more light on the topic?
I think a couple projects were moved because of technical issues. I found this:
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.document...
that refers to another thread I could not find right now.
We mention the L10n management system for each guide in this table:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_Project_guides_table
I think that guide owners have been able to keep that page reasonably up-to-date.
Guide owners, if there is anything outdated on that wiki page, please be bold and fix it.
Petr, can you and Jack also follow up on the open ticket(s) in Transifex? If I read right, the Tx guys are looking for more information so they can address the file name length and lost connection issues.
Hi Paul, Jack, and others,
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:11:58 -0500 "Paul W. Frields" stickster@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 05:48:01PM +0100, Petr Kovar wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 08:50:25 +0100 Gianluca Sforna giallu@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Dimitri Glezos glezos@transifex.com wrote:
Can you please shed some more light on the topic?
I think a couple projects were moved because of technical issues. I found this:
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.document...
that refers to another thread I could not find right now.
We mention the L10n management system for each guide in this table:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_Project_guides_table
I think that guide owners have been able to keep that page reasonably up-to-date.
Guide owners, if there is anything outdated on that wiki page, please be bold and fix it.
Petr, can you and Jack also follow up on the open ticket(s) in Transifex? If I read right, the Tx guys are looking for more information so they can address the file name length and lost connection issues.
We discussed this in today's docs meeting. I'm already in contact with the Tx devs, so I will follow up on the ticket and report issues to them.
Cheers, Petr Kovar
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Petr Kovar pkovar@redhat.com wrote:
We mention the L10n management system for each guide in this table: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_Project_guides_table
I hate to be the one asking the obvious.. but on this topic I feel that very little is being discussed openly. Some obvious Qs, some of which have been pointed out in the past by a number of people:
- Have any blocker issues been raised to the Transifex team and haven't been addressed? The issue in question has been asked just 10 days ago, and replied to the same day.. [1]
- Have the costs of having two separate platforms been carefully & openly weighted by the L10n community? Has it discussed, requested and approved the usage of another platform?
- Since the Fedora Infrastructure has not approved the RFR [2], why has this been deployed outside of Fedora and privately pushed?
Right now, a different platform is being shoved down the L10n team's throat without any public discussion or effort to work on top of what we have. This is just wrong. We're Fedora, we can do way better than this guys.
-d
[1]: https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client/issues/25 [2]: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2011-June/010532.htm...
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:31:00PM +0200, Dimitri Glezos wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Petr Kovar pkovar@redhat.com wrote:
We mention the L10n management system for each guide in this table: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs_Project_guides_table
I hate to be the one asking the obvious.. but on this topic I feel that very little is being discussed openly. Some obvious Qs, some of which have been pointed out in the past by a number of people:
Have any blocker issues been raised to the Transifex team and haven't been addressed? The issue in question has been asked just 10 days ago, and replied to the same day.. [1]
Have the costs of having two separate platforms been carefully & openly weighted by the L10n community? Has it discussed, requested and approved the usage of another platform?
Since the Fedora Infrastructure has not approved the RFR [2], why has this been deployed outside of Fedora and privately pushed?
Right now, a different platform is being shoved down the L10n team's throat without any public discussion or effort to work on top of what we have. This is just wrong. We're Fedora, we can do way better than this guys.
-d
Sorry if I read the history wrong here. It looked to me like someone raised the issue of a config file in June 2012, there was a reply about it a month later in late July 2012, and a ticket filed in January 2013 (~6 months later) about the problem that caused the June 2012 issue.
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/2012-June/014423.html http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/2012-July/014465.html
Did I miss an issue reported earlier to the Tx team?
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Dimitri Glezos glezos@transifex.com wrote:
Have the costs of having two separate platforms been carefully & openly weighted by the L10n community? Has it discussed, requested and approved the usage of another platform?
I'm a bit lost here - do components which are part of Fedora receive a mandate to not choose any infrastructure other than those hosted/supported by Fedora ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/2013 01:25 PM, sankarshan wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Dimitri Glezos glezos@transifex.com wrote:
Have the costs of having two separate platforms been carefully & openly weighted by the L10n community? Has it discussed, requested and approved the usage of another platform?
I'm a bit lost here - do components which are part of Fedora receive a mandate to not choose any infrastructure other than those hosted/supported by Fedora ?
AFAIK, there is no mandate. That said, by scattering the work around to different systems, translators have a more difficult time trying to find what needs to be done. It's more efficient to have a single location to work from, IMO. It's also simpler from the Docs end so we don't have so many tools to use to pull in the translations.
- --Eric
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Eric Christensen sparks@fedoraproject.org wrote:
That said, by scattering the work around to different systems, translators have a more difficult time trying to find what needs to be done.
This thread hasn't received an input from a translator about whether "different systems" help or, hinder.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/28/2013 02:38 PM, sankarshan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Eric Christensen sparks@fedoraproject.org wrote:
That said, by scattering the work around to different systems, translators have a more difficult time trying to find what needs to be done.
This thread hasn't received an input from a translator about whether "different systems" help or, hinder.
Correct. This is not a new topic, however. We've had this discussion with translators in the past.
- -- Eric
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Eric Christensen sparks@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Correct. This is not a new topic, however. We've had this discussion with translators in the past.
Indeed. However, since the topic is being revisited, there needs to be participation from the L10n/translators groups.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Eric Christensen sparks@fedoraproject.org wrote:
AFAIK, there is no mandate. That said, by scattering the work around to different systems, translators have a more difficult time trying to find what needs to be done. It's more efficient to have a single location to work from, IMO. It's also simpler from the Docs end so we don't have so many tools to use to pull in the translations.
Exactly. We (translators) have already too much things to work on even without having to learn operations and quirks of another translation platform. I would bet the moved docs had sensibly lower translation percentages than previous releases.
If this really happen, the coordinator should be blamed as they are unable to tell the translator taking a look at zanata. 在 2013-1-29 PM5:43，"Gianluca Sforna" giallu@gmail.com写道：
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Eric Christensen sparks@fedoraproject.org wrote:
AFAIK, there is no mandate. That said, by scattering the work around to different systems, translators have a more difficult time trying to find what needs to be done. It's more efficient to have a single location to work from, IMO. It's also simpler from the Docs end so we don't have so many tools to use to pull in the translations.
Exactly. We (translators) have already too much things to work on even without having to learn operations and quirks of another translation platform. I would bet the moved docs had sensibly lower translation percentages than previous releases.
-- Gianluca Sforna
http://morefedora.blogspot.com http://identi.ca/giallu - http://twitter.com/giallu -- docs mailing list docs@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gianluca Sforna" giallu@gmail.com To: "For participants of the Documentation Project" docs@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:50:25 AM Subject: Re: On the localization infrasturcutre of the Docs project
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Dimitri Glezos glezos@transifex.com wrote:
Can you please shed some more light on the topic?
I think a couple projects were moved because of technical issues. I found this:
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?group=gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.document...
that refers to another thread I could not find right now.
I believe it's this one:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/trans/2012-July/010080.html
-Steve
On 01/25/2013 01:42 PM, Dimitri Glezos wrote:
Hello,
There is a lot of confusion on the L10n group on where some of our docs are translated. At some point it seems that some docs owners have decided (or were asked) to put their projects on a Zanata server instead of Transifex.
https://fedora.transifex.com/ https://fedora.transifex.com/projects/p/fedora/access/outsource/
Can you please shed some more light on the topic?
-d
My apologies for not weighing in on this sooner. Between a public holiday, wild weather, and floods, it's been a rocky few days here in Brisbane.
I'll just recap what led the Installation Guide and Installation Quick Start Guide to Zanata. The impetus was that the sheer size of the Installation Guide made uploading it all to Transifex impossible. Between the necessarily lengthy filenames and timeouts, I couldn't complete the push, and translation time was being lost.
So I made the files available on Zanata rather than not making them available at all, because translation time was dwindling. On both docs-list and trans-list, I made the technical reasons clear and also emphasised that the move was for purely technical reasons, rather than being reflective of a desire to move more projects on to Zanata. As far as I was concerned, Zanata's involvement in Fedora documentation translation was confined to these two guides, and even then, not necessarily indefinitely.
Dimitri did indeed ask me to lodge a bug about the problems I'd encountered with Transifex back in July, but because Zanata was working fine and time was short, gathering that information to help address the Transifex issue regrettably became a low priority.
However, when time opened up following the huge overhaul of the Installation Guide for Fedora 18, I circled back and lodged the bug. I actually did so the day after finishing my work on the guide for F18 and publishing it.
My apologies for not replying to the bug with the necessary information sooner - a lack of time was to blame. I will try to work out the characteristics of the timeouts and reply to the bug within a week so the Transifex team can look into it further.
I'm sorry for the confusion and frustration this has caused, but I was clear as I could be about the reasoning behind these changes at the time they were made, and I was doing my best to ensure that translation of these books was assisted rather than undermined.
Thanks,
Jack
Re-opening this thread to make sure everything is working fine with Transifex.
Jack, the two issues reported are marked as resolved, can you please let us know if there is anything else obstructing the usage of Transifex for Docs?
https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client/issues/25 https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client/issues/28
-d
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Jack Reed jreed@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/25/2013 01:42 PM, Dimitri Glezos wrote:
Hello,
There is a lot of confusion on the L10n group on where some of our docs are translated. At some point it seems that some docs owners have decided (or were asked) to put their projects on a Zanata server instead of Transifex.
https://fedora.transifex.com/ https://fedora.transifex.com/projects/p/fedora/access/outsource/
Can you please shed some more light on the topic?
-d
My apologies for not weighing in on this sooner. Between a public holiday, wild weather, and floods, it's been a rocky few days here in Brisbane.
I'll just recap what led the Installation Guide and Installation Quick Start Guide to Zanata. The impetus was that the sheer size of the Installation Guide made uploading it all to Transifex impossible. Between the necessarily lengthy filenames and timeouts, I couldn't complete the push, and translation time was being lost.
So I made the files available on Zanata rather than not making them available at all, because translation time was dwindling. On both docs-list and trans-list, I made the technical reasons clear and also emphasised that the move was for purely technical reasons, rather than being reflective of a desire to move more projects on to Zanata. As far as I was concerned, Zanata's involvement in Fedora documentation translation was confined to these two guides, and even then, not necessarily indefinitely.
Dimitri did indeed ask me to lodge a bug about the problems I'd encountered with Transifex back in July, but because Zanata was working fine and time was short, gathering that information to help address the Transifex issue regrettably became a low priority.
However, when time opened up following the huge overhaul of the Installation Guide for Fedora 18, I circled back and lodged the bug. I actually did so the day after finishing my work on the guide for F18 and publishing it.
My apologies for not replying to the bug with the necessary information sooner - a lack of time was to blame. I will try to work out the characteristics of the timeouts and reply to the bug within a week so the Transifex team can look into it further.
I'm sorry for the confusion and frustration this has caused, but I was clear as I could be about the reasoning behind these changes at the time they were made, and I was doing my best to ensure that translation of these books was assisted rather than undermined.
Thanks,
Jack
-- Jack Reed Content Author Engineering Content Services
Red Hat Asia Pacific Brisbane, Australia Phone: +617 3514 8184
-- docs mailing list docs@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
Hey Dimitris,
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:01:09 -0700 Dimitris Glezos glezos@transifex.com wrote:
Re-opening this thread to make sure everything is working fine with Transifex.
Jack, the two issues reported are marked as resolved, can you please let us know if there is anything else obstructing the usage of Transifex for Docs?
https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client/issues/25 https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client/issues/28
The following issue / RFE related to pushing the IG to Tx is still open:
https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client/issues/27
Do you guys plan to work on this feature?
Cheers,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:23:18PM +0200, Petr Kovar wrote:
The following issue / RFE related to pushing the IG to Tx is still open:
I've commented[0] on the ticket as I believe I have a solution for the problem, if I'm reading the problem correctly. There are still a few things that need to be worked, however.
[0] https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client/issues/27#issuecomment-1722561...
- -- Eric
- -------------------------------------------------- Eric "Sparks" Christensen Fedora Project - Red Hat
sparks@redhat.com - sparks@fedoraproject.org 097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1 - --------------------------------------------------
Yes, this is the remaining issue on github, Dimitris. I've added a new comment on the issue page in reply to Sparks.
Jack
On 04/30/2013 11:05 PM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:23:18PM +0200, Petr Kovar wrote:
The following issue / RFE related to pushing the IG to Tx is still open:
I've commented[0] on the ticket as I believe I have a solution for the problem, if I'm reading the problem correctly. There are still a few things that need to be worked, however.
[0] https://github.com/transifex/transifex-client/issues/27#issuecomment-1722561...
- -- Eric
Eric "Sparks" Christensen Fedora Project - Red Hat
sparks@redhat.com - sparks@fedoraproject.org 097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJRf8GwAAoJEB/kgVGp2CYvC68L/11QC3vNAo86JHp3tZqeQfJt 6VrCY8lokONSElspBLa+l4QvO/Mjy73cXwelrxW/vEbHSMDcc/23CXHIX6bkRIrg FFG93gtynj6awxLJB3Bjiky4GqxLL4lSGNiEqgbDN8VgBiP9vGN7ZwuD8v+j1hVM WoIQF2yCIvJvXFaPnBkm4ug55okY18pupFtuhf+d79qB3fkmpBV3ghMHrhiZ0UT/ sSR/HaWZJH88PqND0I6/ft1l52JG9KUbj7kA2g4PblYqPJdX5sGbsXyefDzfvzun lL0R5vB8L29JQTTx0Q2QxWZyXSXxIoME9ATMYzJzqTEE5Ggm2HcOrJeVKI+Fhsl3 XsA4Z6vGIJrZunIAZWSOvcPuClu3qucUgqHOX8YTlSz7Uut9P40QfmbLTVDjRKNs JwKPUomYlIUyeEZunPCaMQUiD9hVU5ypifdVKf0Fa6zpwotySDoOvzIyZO5SLyOV 1n322+PeACAV02whuEvQy9vaTt80LeHKs3cde3Rm6g== =6nXv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
Christopher Meng -
Dimitris Glezos -
Eric Christensen -
Gianluca Sforna -
Jack Reed -
Paul W. Frields -
Petr Kovar -
sankarshan -
Steve Gordon