Em Sex, 2011-02-18 às 19:04 -0500, Jared K. Smith escreveu:
In general, yes, one could argue that having Fedora being self-hosted
from an infrastructure standpoint is better. But we've also got to be
open-minded enough to realize that each additional tool we add to our
own infrastructure comes with a maintenance burden (or a technical
debt, as some people prefer to call it). One of my jobs as the Fedora
Project Leader is to work with all the teams involved to help balance
our wishes with our resources, and try to make the best decisions I
can for Fedora as a whole. In the case of the migration to
Transifex.net, it's pretty clear that the advantages outweigh the
risks. Why can I say that so confidently? It's because I've watched
the Transifex team as they've developed the software, turned it into a
small business, and continued to do the right thing.
From the QA side I believe that migrating to Tx.n was a good move. The
instability of Fedora's Transifex instance could lead to problems when
submitting translations, making translators and developers frustrated
when a translation doesn't end in a final version or when a deadline is
missed. I'm also sure that new features offered by Tx.n will help the
translation community to do a better job, what means an operating system
with better translations.
From my early experience on Fedora I realize that strong translation
communities means strong regional communities because people feel
supported and glad to use and contribute to Fedora in their mother
language. I have seen the great improvement made by the Transifex
developers during the years and how things got better if compared to my
early days as a translator. That´s why I'm also confident that we are
moving to the right direction now.
--
Igor Pires Soares
Fedora Ambassador (Brazil) - Member of FAmSCo
Fedora I18N/L10N QA
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Igor