From Fedora Project Wiki

Plans

Here are some detailed plans on what we can do in the localization landscape. Maybe "ideas" is a better word. Mostly ideas specific to tools, gathered in mailing lists and at FOSS.in when a bunch of translators and developers gathered around.

These aren't official plans of the FLP, just a bunch of useful notes and food for thought.

Correct what's not working (fix)

Priority 1

  • OK - Put Transifex into production at translate.fpo (100% complete)
  • OK - Add missing modules & branches, do some final checks
  • OK - Announce (Fedora and lwn/foo)
  • OK - Make sure statistics and every piece of the puzzle works
  • OK - Mass-email elvis users to create Fedora accounts (/L10N/Join page is ready)
  • OK - IRC for help in registration process (sign CLA etc)

Others:

  • CANTFIX (no resources) - Migrate users from elvis

Priority 2

  • OK in v05 - Add email notifications
  • OK in v05 - For every commit, new module (or edit), notify related people
  • OK in v05 - Expose public parts as RSS too
  • OK - Enable all projects in Transifex
  • OK - Contact hosted.fpo-hosted developers to add their project too (eg. opyum)
  • OK - Communicate with rest of elvis devs and urge them to move to Fedora infra
  • OK - Enable Tx on both app servers
  • OK in v05 - Add possibility to set flag with Tx (hold/release a package)


Increase efficiency (enhance)

Priority 1

  • OK in v05 - Code high-level views for maintenance
  • OK in v05 - Big table with registered modules, releases, branches
  • OK in v05 - DL: Keep in sync with upstream, convince them to do releases
  • OK in v05 - Move DL SQLite to mysql, have one app server to update the DB and the rest just their caches
  • OK in v05 - Configure DL to get notifications for each commit from each VCS (probably via Tx) and update LIVE the module's statistics, instead of running the cron job every a few hours.
  • OK in v05 - Separate Tx commit mechanism from web app to a separate process/service. (big project) Benefits: Increased security (apache no access to the SSH keys), enable an upstream project to actually do the commit/push, Tx only requests the commits (good for GNOME, KDE, etc)
  • OK in v05 - Increase verbosity in tools: Add more links and common info in both DL+Tx (eg. mention on the top of each page how to checkout and where from to checkin respectively, links to bugzilla and maintainers, etc).

Others:

  • Same table for Tx but also test write access for each module/branch
  • SSH key overview/administration (admins)
  • CANTFIX (no resources) - DL+Tx: Make sure all branches/modules are there, all the time. This applies for all registered super-projects (Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, OLPC)

Priority 2

  • OK in v05 - Give more control to developers directly
  • OK in v05 - Add web-based interface for developers to register their projects
  • OK in v05 - Give them the ability to add a new branch to their module
  • OK - Give Transifex access directly through the FAS (reduced overhead on Fedora Infra)
  • OK in v05 - Build RPM for DL and push DL+Tx RPMs in Fedora Universe
  • OK in v05 - Build a common model/configuration with DL (maintenance cost down).
  • OK in v05 - Create similar models to DL in Tx. Experiment in running DL scripts to populate them. Goal: Not having to maintain two separate Views, configuration files, checked-out caches.

Others:

  • WONTFIX (we have a better solution with intermediate repos) - Expose repos: Give developers the ability to pull translations instead of having Tx push them


Add functionality (extend)

Priority 1

  • OK (could need some more love) - Get in touch with RH Docs to see if they could work closer with the community and leverage its throughput
  • OK in v05 - Test OpenID
  • OK in v05 - Make Tx *completely* portable to any independent project that wants its resources localized

Others:

  • Planned: Implement VCS-agnostic CLI client to work independantly of the web interface (big project). Eg. tx checkout --all and tx submit <proj> <branch> <file>
  • Maybe someday: Could get integrated with kbabel, gtranslator, etc.
  • Planned: Pootle: Make it work with Transifex. See what is/isn't needed and customize accordingly.
  • CANTFIX (no resources) - Install a test instance, even without Tx for specspo
  • No feedback: Why not have the docs in some "unofficially supported" languages too?
  • Discuss with Debian community their needs and requirements

Priority 2

  • OK in v05 - Add ability to "hold" and "release" a project/branch, like in elvis
  • OK - Start thinking big
  • OK in v05 - Have language-specific and project-specific sub-domains, specific content for each
  • Planned: Fine-grain permissions in Tx: Language maintainers, approvals by proj/lang/branch, etc. Who owns what, who controls what.

Community

  • OK - Send emails to -announce before every release

Others:

  • Continue building groups, mailing lists, the community
  • Work better together with Ambassadors -- look at Ubuntu for "loco teams"
  • Give credits in all Fedora-is-upstream applications/docs
  • Bi-weekly meetings
  • Split specspo in chunks of reduced priority.
  • Also, make it work with rpm (spot)

Other ideas worth considering

  • JBOSS Docs, similar to RH Docs
  • Docs in general! LTSP? Manpages?
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:L10N/Tools/Plans&oldid=110192"