Re: l10n

[David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>]

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Mohammad Nour El-Din
> <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi David...
>>
>>   Would you please elaborate on what kind of agreement CS has with
>> Transifex ? The loclaized content you get from their service is it licensed
>> some how ? If yes what kind of license they use ?
>
> We don't really have any agreement in place with Transifex/Indifex. To
> be a bit more clear:
> Transifex is open source software for localization (analogous to
> pootle). Indifex (a company that's the prime sponsor of work on
> Transifex) provides free open source project l10n hosting at
> http://transifex.net - and that's what we've made use of. (Much like
> Fedora, Mozilla, and a scores of other open source projects do.)
>
> The benefit to staying with transifex IMO is:
> * Zero effort on ASF infra to maintain - Transifex maintains it all,
> and does so for free
> * It's a format/process already familiar to our existing l10n contributors.
> * Zero effort on CS folks to migrate (Though I expect that would be trivial.)
>
> The potential downsides I see:
> It's not hosted on ASF hardware. (Though the only projects that seem
> to use translate.a.o, are svn, jmeter, and AOO, so perhaps they are
> doing so elsewhere as well)
>
> So current problems with Transifex, are that we have it locked down
> pretty tight, essentially Citrix required a signed CLA before we'd
> allow an account with access to work on l10n. That's clearly not a
> blocker here. Also, we had to note that CS was a copyleft project and
> thus folks couldn't freely reuse our work and vice-versa (Transifex
> will automagically translate things) Finally, we still have 2.2.x
> resources there that would need to be cleaned out I suppose.
>
> --David

So a couple of followup comments. No one has raised problems with this
sitting external to the ASF (and please feel free to do so, though I
don't inherently see any) So, barring those, I've decided (for me
personally) that there is plenty of other priorities at the moment for
Apache CloudStack's incubation, and that it can continue to live at
Transifex for the foreseeable future. (unless someone else wants to
run with this and start the work to migrate it)

My personal decision was based on the following:
1) it appears only 3 projects are using t.a.o, which suggests that
others are doing it elsewhere.
2) We have plenty of folks actively working over at transifex on l10n
for CloudStack

I am happy to grant admin perms for the project at Transifex[1] to
folks in the PPMC who feel they might need them (and actually wish to
do this, don't want to be a SPOF). Additionally, I've opened up access
to the project to more closely mirror t.a.o's permissions scheme[2]

--David

[1] https://www.transifex.net/projects/p/CloudStack_UI/resource/30xmessagesproperties/
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/translate+pootle+service+auth+levels