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.



On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Noriko Mizumoto <noriko@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
(2014年07月12日 03:20), Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:48:42 +1000
Noriko Mizumoto <noriko@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 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

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?





infrastructure mailing list

Take a Deep Breath out of Windows