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.
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
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
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.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Noriko Mizumoto <noriko(a)fedoraproject.org>
(2014年07月12日 03:20), Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000
> Noriko Mizumoto <noriko(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 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
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
I've added this item in the list , 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
infrastructure mailing list
Take a Deep Breath out of Windows