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