Rex Dieter (rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx) said:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said:
> >> It is far from clear to me why Fedora needs to provide its own
> >> infrastructure for itself rather than just use something like Savannah.
> >
> > Integrating the translation project into Savannah seems like
> > it would be hard, if not impossible.
>
> How so?
Just bringing in 1000 users who all need access to specific subsets
of 100 packages; it's possible, I suppose. Seems like a large
maintenance issue that we could solve better if we at least controlled
the backend.
There's also the current infrastructure that allows translators
to 'reserve' files for a period of time. I'm not sure how that
would work at all.
> In a similar vein, we should probably come up with a list of
> requirements, if we have any hope of properly evaluating project hosting
> alternatives.
Okily dokily.
1) Various and sundry SCM (currently used: CVS, hg, git)
- ACLs
- notification of commits, per module and general
- pre-commit sanity checks (translation validity, etc.)
2) Ability to release & host tarballs
3) Some sort of basic web space, either via a CMS, or static. vhosting
could even be nice.
4) mailing lists?
5) bug tracking?
6) Ability to work with our translation infrastructure; currently, this involves:
- 2113 translator accounts (admittedly, not all active)
- 173 locales (admittedly, not all active)
- Ability for translators to reserve files
- Ability to set up per-language translator team mailing lists that span
projects
- Ability to restrict translators to a specific subset of a project's files,
not maintained per-project
- (wishlist) ability to not have to maintain a @&$& modules file by hand to
get stuff to translators :)
- (wishlist) web download/upload/commit mechanisms?
- reports!
That's off the top of my head.
Bill
