On Friday 15 August 2008 08:19:44 Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 13:34 -0400, Ricky Zhou wrote: > > On 2008-08-13 04:01:35 PM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > > We need one CMS solution (for sanity sake), although >1 install might > > > be OK(?), to cover: > > > > > > * fedoraproject.org > > > * docs.fedoraproject.org > > > > If you don't mind, I'd like to focus this discussion on > > docs.fedoraproject.org first - the way I see it, if a CMS won't work for > > docs, then it's not worth using it on fp.o (plus maintaining a > > completely separate setup for docs). > > > > The one main requirement (featurewise) from fp.o would be not breaking > > translator workflows. What features/use cases does docs need/want? > > You are totally correct. My reason for jamming it together was to > capture and move one-time the various ACL'd pages in the wiki. Another > option we've discussed previously is to move them to e.g. Packaging: > namespace. Then we have to re-jiggle the default search, etc. But it > is far less disruptive. > > Ideally we'd match or improve the l10n workflow, such as by kicking out > PO files from the CMS in to Transifex. It would be great if the l10n workflow doesn't break the authoring workflow as well. For example, if the CMS supports draft->review->$foo->publish workflows, to be able to ship the content for l10n only at certain stages, and have the workflow go back to a certain stage if a mistake/error is found in the source- language content by the translator... And also, it would be great for translators to have a 'review' step in the workflow for translated content before it is published, so that they can see translations in context. These are not necessarily requirements, but would be very nice to have :) cheers, asgeir -- Fedora-websites-list mailing list Fedora-websites-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
