Ticket #2389 (closed RFR: wontfix)

Opened 4 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

translate.fp.o instability

Reported by: noriko Owned by: nobody
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: General Version:
Severity: Normal Keywords: meeting
Cc: shaiton, tiansworld, raven, logan, ruigo, lashar, beckerde, diegobz, badone, hedayat, giallu, mrtom, goeran, gomix, vpv, runab, tezcatl, kevin Blocked By:
Blocking: Sensitive:

Description

Problem:
Transifex v0.7.4 is running on translate.fp.o, and translators are experiencing several problems too often. In the middle of F14 cycle, this instability harms our productivity. Even worse, those problems sometime reproduceable, but sometime not. Current work around is only to 'Refresh cache', but this sometime again does not work. Here is the list of problems.

  • When submitting translated PO file, 'page no found' is appeared.
  • When downloading a PO file to translate, 'page not found' is appeared.
  • Downloading seems successful, but downloaded PO file to translate is broken.
  • 'Refresh Cache' does not occur automatically.

What we need:
It is needed to identify the cause of these problems and to list up the actions to take for fix or work around. Then some of L10N team members might be capable to take one or more actions from the action list for fix. After the release, the version also needs to be upgraded. Eventually L10N team needs more fresh members for L10N-Admin who can maintains L10N specific Infra. For this purpose, I would like to request the resource from Infrastructure team for help asap.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by shaiton

  • Cc shaiton added

Thank you noriko to report this,

I just want to add an other problem encountered

  • Page not found is appearing when trying to download lots of po files (which are in fedorahosted.org). Ok, this should be about the configuration, but still is a problem.

The transifex 1.0 is comming soon, and should correct part of the actual instability.

Cheers

comment:2 in reply to: ↑ description Changed 4 years ago by tiansworld

  • Cc tiansworld added; shaiton removed

The problem I experienced the most is

  • When submitting translated PO file, 'page no found' is appeared.

But I don't know what should be done to solve it. Just wait another time to submit again. For the guys edit and submit on-line(that pencil icon), this problem is a disaster, all of the work they do may lost. Also other similar problems:

  • online editing, then 'page no found'
  • view po online, then 'page no found'

If we are idle for a while after we login to transifex, we will be logged out. But the translate.fp.o still shows that we've logged in. Then we have to login again, this may cause the submitting problem also. Is it possible to make auto logout time longer?

sorry for my poor expression

comment:3 in reply to: ↑ description Changed 4 years ago by tiansworld

  • Cc shaiton added

The problem I experienced the most is

  • When submitting translated PO file, 'page no found' is appeared.

But I don't know what should be done to solve it. Just wait another time to submit again. For the guys edit and submit on-line(that pencil icon), this problem is a disaster, all of the work they do may lost. Also other similar problems:

  • online editing, then 'page no found'
  • view po online, then 'page no found'

If we are idle for a while after we login to transifex, we will be logged out. But the translate.fp.o still shows that we've logged in. Then we have to login again, this may cause the submitting problem also. Is it possible to make auto logout time longer?

sorry for my poor expression

comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by raven

  • Cc raven added

comment:5 in reply to: ↑ description Changed 4 years ago by logan

  • Cc logan added

Replying to noriko:

Problem:
Transifex v0.7.4 is running on translate.fp.o, and translators are experiencing several problems too often. In the middle of F14 cycle, this instability harms our productivity. Even worse, those problems sometime reproduceable, but sometime not. Current work around is only to 'Refresh cache', but this sometime again does not work. Here is the list of problems.

  • When submitting translated PO file, 'page no found' is appeared.
  • When downloading a PO file to translate, 'page not found' is appeared.
  • Downloading seems successful, but downloaded PO file to translate is broken.
  • 'Refresh Cache' does not occur automatically.

What we need:
It is needed to identify the cause of these problems and to list up the actions to take for fix or work around. Then some of L10N team members might be capable to take one or more actions from the action list for fix. After the release, the version also needs to be upgraded. Eventually L10N team needs more fresh members for L10N-Admin who can maintains L10N specific Infra. For this purpose, I would like to request the resource from Infrastructure team for help asap.

comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by mmcgrath

This is a pretty long running problem. Basically no one is maintaining transifex. I've sent several requests at this point to people on the trans team and not a single one of them even responded with "no" they just ignored us.

Upstream seems to think the version we're running is EOL or close to it. They're closer with the translations team then we are so they're going to try to find a package maintainer. But someone from the translations team _MUST_ step up and partner with this application with the infrastructure team.

Alternatively, just use transifex.net. Those are really your options.

comment:7 Changed 4 years ago by glezos

The first step in getting Tx upgraded (either for 0.9 or 1.0) is get an RPM up, so we'll need someone to find the time to update the Tx spec file.

Both the 0.9 and 1.0-alpha can be found at: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/transifex/.

Two extra notes:

  1. Transifex 1.0 will be released in the next couple of weeks, and there is no VCS integration, so no more VCS problems. This will not solve the problem of missing maintainer though.
  1. fedora.transifex.net can easily be created.

comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by ruigo

  • Cc ruigo added

comment:9 Changed 4 years ago by mmcgrath

I'm not sure we can use 1.0 for this release. We're frozen from now until the 29th. Then again for the final release on the 19th. Considering tx is not just a major change on the server side, but also adds steps developers need to do I'm hesitant to upgrade to it for F14, especially after the beta.

We can upgrade for F15 absolutely, for now though we need to make the current version work or move to 0.9 maybe?

comment:10 Changed 4 years ago by lashar

  • Cc lashar added

comment:11 Changed 4 years ago by noriko

Good news, Kevin (shaiton) steps up for us!

It would be ideal that making the current version work with least impact. Is this possible? Or we have no choice but must move to 0.9?

For F15, +100, I like to see upgrade.

comment:12 follow-up: ↓ 13 Changed 4 years ago by shaiton

Someone has done something last night, cause release notes are available now :) (by tx) Thanks to the anonymous! But we've lost the locks.

Hey, noriko, nothing has been decided yet, but if nobody on the L10N team ask to become our package maintainer/sysadmin ref, here I am :). but not sure to do it for 50 years .

comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 4 years ago by tiansworld

Replying to shaiton:

Someone has done something last night, cause release notes are available now :) (by tx) Thanks to the anonymous! But we've lost the locks.

Hey, noriko, nothing has been decided yet, but if nobody on the L10N team ask to become our package maintainer/sysadmin ref, here I am :). but not sure to do it for 50 years .

Thanks first!

Are there any requirements to be a maintainer/sysadmin ? I am interested in sysadmin, but I don't have any maintenance and admin experience yet :)

comment:14 Changed 4 years ago by noriko

Kevin and tiansworld

Thank you so much.
Simply we are short of resource on L10N-Admin, and we need someone from translators who maintain our Transifex with the upstream and Infra team. Otherwise we have to discuss for move to transifex.net. It may take longer to the conclusion on this discussion, and it may not be good timing for now. Regardless short or long term, I really appreciate if you both can closely observe our Transifex and address when necessary. It is recommended to subscribe infrastrucutre@list.

Please check this thread for recent change on transifex.

http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/2010-September/009455.html

comment:15 follow-up: ↓ 18 Changed 4 years ago by mmcgrath

To echo noriko's comment, we've contacted people from the l10n team multiple times to help with this and I didn't even get a "no" back. Just silence. Our main problem is the rpm is completely unmaintained. I spent a good part of Monday trying to get 0.9 to work with no avail. Domingo Becker responded earlier this week but I'm not sure how far he's gotten.

If anyone actually has a working 0.9 rpm I'd love to get it upgraded.

comment:16 follow-up: ↓ 17 Changed 4 years ago by mmcgrath

Sorry, just to clarify my last comment, it sounds like I'm blaming the translation team there, that's not my intention. Just that we really need help from anyone who might have the time and ability :)

comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 16 Changed 4 years ago by logan

Replying to mmcgrath:

Sorry, just to clarify my last comment, it sounds like I'm blaming the translation team there, that's not my intention. Just that we really need help from anyone who might have the time and ability :)

I know for a fact that he's working on it. I'm sure he has the ability, not so sure about the time :( He will soon contact us soon.

comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 15 Changed 4 years ago by beckerde

Replying to mmcgrath:

Our main problem is the rpm is completely unmaintained. I spent a good part of Monday trying to get 0.9 to work with no avail. Domingo Becker responded earlier this week but I'm not sure how far he's gotten.

If anyone actually has a working 0.9 rpm I'd love to get it upgraded.

You're right, the one in koji is not a working rpm. But it's something that can be solved. It's just a matter of having the time to do it.

The actual state is that I was able to install the rpm for transifex 0.9 from koji, and now I know the right dependencies for CentOS 5.5 in order to correct the transifex.spec file.

Now I'm working in the setup, with the help of Diego and Dimitris. As soon as I have a running copy of transifex in my server, I'll make the corrections to the transifex.spec file and submit it to your consideration, and probably build a new src.rpm.

I think that the upgrade of the actual database should be tested too with the new rpm. I'm installing a new transifex instance, and not upgrading an old one. My spec will reflect that. :-| But one step at a time.

comment:19 follow-up: ↓ 20 Changed 4 years ago by beckerde

  • Cc beckerde added

comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 19 Changed 4 years ago by shaiton

Replying to beckerde: Hi beckerde, thank you so much!

I've now little knowledge in building rpm. I hope that the spec file should be quite the same between tx 0.9 and tx 1: feel free to ask me help if I can do anything. I really want to help for successfully installing transifex (1 of course).

Could you share your current work? I'm already following the infra ML, but we could meet on irc if you prefer. (am currently at the Zurich' FUDCon, could not really work before next week).

The harder work would be to migrate the db, is it really different?

Furthermore, do we need any django knowledge to maintain transifex (sys-admin view)? (that won't stops me :) )

comment:21 Changed 4 years ago by beckerde

  • Cc diegobz added

I finally have a running instance of Tx in my computer. I went through the installation process and make the transifex rpm work. So I know now what is missing in the transifex.spec to make it work out of the rpm. I will update it, as well as the dependencies that need update too, and test again. If I succeed again, I will submit the .src.rpm to mmcgrath's consideration.

comment:22 Changed 4 years ago by badone

  • Cc badone added

comment:23 Changed 4 years ago by hedayat

I'm a Fedora package maintainer which recently have also joined the localization team. And I'm just been hit by losing all my edits in an online translation. If still needed, I think I can be the co-maintainer of transifex in EPEL (BTW, I don't have any experience in EPEL package maintenance nor in python packaging).

comment:24 Changed 4 years ago by glezos

ping, do we have an update on this? Let's talk in #fedora-l10n to solve the problems quickly.

comment:25 Changed 4 years ago by beckerde

An update: I modified the transifex.spec with the necessary changes. The affected files are in [1]. The file transifex.spec is the actual spec file. It updates the transifex.spec included in transifex-0.9.0-1.el5.src.rpm in koji, which will become build 2. It's the only change to that srpm package. The file transifex.diff in [1] shows the changes.

I will add the 4 new packages and the update to Django-south-0.6.1-1.el5 as soon as I can.

[1] http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/

comment:26 Changed 4 years ago by beckerde

Another update:

I'm close to finish the work.

It was necessary 4 new packages and 1 update to an existing one.

Upgraded:

  1. Django-south is upgraded to 0.7.2 and patched to work fine. The Django-south.spec file, it's src.rpm and the corresponding tarball is at [1].

New packages:

  1. django-ajax-selects-1.1.4 Relevant files: django-ajax-selects.spec, its tarball and it's src.rpm file are all at [1].
  2. django-threadedcomments-0.5.3 Relevant files: django-threadedcomments.spec, its tarball and it's src.rpm file are all at [1].
  3. django-staticfiles-0.3.2 Relevant files: django-threadedcomments.spec, its tarball and it's src.rpm file are all at [1].
  4. django-addons-0.6.1 Relevant files: django-threadedcomments.spec, its zip file and it's src.rpm file are all at [1].

I'm having an issue with django-addons, it copies templates/addons.html to /usr/django_addons/templates/addons.html when it does "%{python} setup.py install --root $RPM_BUILD_ROOT", but when building the rpm, in /usr/lib/rpm/check-files it complains that it is installed already. :-s
I'll ask in #fedora-admin and as soon as I have a solution for this I will correct the spec file accordingly and do the final installation check.

[1] http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/

comment:27 follow-up: ↓ 32 Changed 4 years ago by beckerde

Ok, I'm done with the packages and the dependencies.

Here's the work that needs to be done to get Transifex 0.9.0 updated in Fedora epel repo:

  1. Packages that need to be upgraded in Fedora EPEL (files are at [1]):

a.1. Django-south: updated to 0.7.2 and the patch to make it work fine.

Sources: Django-south.spec south-remove-extra.diff south-0.7.2.tar.gz
SRPM: Django-south-0.7.2-1.fc13.src.rpm

a.2. intltool: it can be used the 0.40.5-1 for fc10 package form koji, or backport the fc13 0.42 to Fedora epel.

  1. New packages to be added to Fedora EPEL:

b.1. django-ajax-selects-1.1.4

Sources: django-ajax-selects.spec django-ajax-selects-1.1.4.tar.gz
SRPM: django-ajax-selects-1.1.4-1.fc13.src.rpm

b.2. django-threadedcomments-0.5.3

Sources: django-threadedcomments.spec django-threadedcomments-0.5.3.tar.gz
SRPM: django-threadedcomments-0.5.3-1.fc13.src.rpm

b.3. django-staticfiles-0.3.2

Sources: django-staticfiles.spec django-staticfiles-0.3.2.tar.gz
SRPM: django-staticfiles-0.3.2-1.fc13.src.rpm

b.4. django-addons-0.6.1

Sources: django-addons.spec django-addons-0.6.1.zip
SRPM: django-addons-0.6.1-1.fc13.src.rpm

What's next?

Somebody has to put these packages up for review in order to they can make it to the Fedora EPEL repo. Then, test the installation once again.

I tried to do the installation test, but as I built the packages with Fedora 13, rpm_check_debug gives error saying it needs rpmlib(PayloadIsXz?) and rpmlib(FileDigests?) (a change from Fedora 11).

I can't put these packages up for review because I'm not a Fedora packager, although I would like to become one (I'm looking for a sponsor).

We're close to get t.fp.o Transifex instance updated. :-)

comment:28 follow-up: ↓ 34 Changed 4 years ago by beckerde

oops, I forgot the link to the files. They are at

[1] http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/

comment:29 Changed 4 years ago by beckerde

Sorry, I forgot the most important one:

a.3: transifex-0.9.0: there is only a change to the spec file, to reflect the new dependencies.

Sources: transifex.spec

comment:30 Changed 4 years ago by hedayat

If you'd like to become a packager, you should put the packages for review so that you can find sponsors. This is how you can become a packager :)

comment:31 Changed 4 years ago by hedayat

  • Cc hedayat added

comment:32 in reply to: ↑ 27 Changed 4 years ago by giallu

Replying to beckerde:

I can't put these packages up for review because I'm not a Fedora packager, although I would like to become one (I'm looking for a sponsor).

As noted in another comment, you should put the new packages you have prepared up for review, then you are likely to find a sponsor. For details, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join

For the updated ones we need to understand how to proceed. Django South is at 0.6.1 in epel5, I'm not sure we will be able to make the update there. intltool is even worse, given it's in the main RHEL repo.

Maybe we need to aim for a RHEL6 machine here?

comment:33 Changed 4 years ago by giallu

  • Cc giallu added

comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 28 ; follow-ups: ↓ 35 ↓ 41 Changed 4 years ago by shaiton

Replying to beckerde:

oops, I forgot the link to the files. They are at

[1] http://beckerde.fedorapeople.org/transifex/

Hi beckerde,

Does your packet has been taken by a packager for review? Or have you found a sponsor for becoming a packager?

Do you know that the TX 1.0 has just been released? http://help.transifex.net/technical/releases/1.0.html

It should be really great if we could upgrade directly to this last release, instead of upgrading to the v0.9. Could you see what changes are needed to your SPEC file?

Please, ask for help if the process is frozen.

Cheers

comment:35 in reply to: ↑ 34 Changed 3 years ago by raven

Replying to shaiton:

Do you know that the TX 1.0 has just been released? http://help.transifex.net/technical/releases/1.0.html

It should be really great if we could upgrade directly to this last release, instead of upgrading to the v0.9. Could you see what changes are needed to your SPEC file?

We can't update directly to 1.0, see [1]. Also 1.0 is very different from our present workflow, so I don't think we want to upgrade without any discussion first. Let's postpone it to Fedora 15 and now do an update to 0.9.1, to ease this process in the future.

[1] http://help.transifex.net/technical/releases/1.0.html#migration

comment:36 follow-up: ↓ 37 Changed 3 years ago by mrtom

  • Cc mrtom added

comment:37 in reply to: ↑ 36 Changed 3 years ago by mrtom

Replying to mrtom:

What kind of discussion do you want here? As we don't have internal resources to fork or modify transifex, we are stuck into this tool and the way it works (and I think it is a good thing). If you request a technical discussion, then i'm not able to have it with you, as I'm no technical person :(

comment:38 follow-up: ↓ 39 Changed 3 years ago by raven

Personally I don't want any discussion here. This ticket is about updating our Transifex instance to 0.9.1. If we should update to 1.0 (no VCS integration, no offline translation, no fuzzy strings etc.) is a discussion for trans list.

So - how's the review process of updated packages going?

comment:39 in reply to: ↑ 38 Changed 3 years ago by shaiton

Replying to raven:

If we should update to 1.0 (no VCS integration, no offline translation, no fuzzy strings etc.) is a discussion for trans list.

I am not able to find that. On the website, I can read "This version[1.0] includes a rich API which can be used to interact with Transifex. It includes methods to query Transifex for projects and statistics, but also to import and export files from Transifex itself." Offline translation is still there. No fuzzy strings? I'm not sure, they will be converted as suggestions. Changes are explained there[1]. Removing the VCS intergration is just more secure and really faster. The push stuff could be done using their command line tools, as a cron job.

If it is necessary to upgrade with 0.9.1 before v1.0, alright. But in that case, we should do it in background, in order to use the last release ASAP. Because we all know that if we start using the v0.9, and finally decide that we need the v1.0, we will have to do the same work again (filling a ticket, speaking, finding people, upgrading.) We know that it is a big job for the infra team.

Therefore, questions are:

  • Is it really easier to upgrade from 0.7 -> 0.9.1 -> 1.0 than just working only on integrating the last release (0.7 to 1.0)? If yes, do we (L10n team) need the latest release (1.0)? => I could not find any bad reasons for that *> So - how's the review process of updated packages going?

What changes for developers? translators? See[1] [1] http://help.transifex.net/user-guide/one-dot-zero.html#user-one-dot-zero

comment:40 Changed 3 years ago by goeran

  • Cc goeran added

comment:41 in reply to: ↑ 34 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

Replying to shaiton:

Does your packet has been taken by a packager for review? Or have you found a sponsor for becoming a packager?

No, they were not taken by any packager. I haven't gone through the process of becoming a packager because I thought that if somebody already packager take these packages for upload and review, it would be a faster process. But it seems I will have to apply for packager to make this ticket move on. I'm currently working on the Software Management Guide translation to English.

Do you know that the TX 1.0 has just been released? http://help.transifex.net/technical/releases/1.0.html

It should be really great if we could upgrade directly to this last release, instead of upgrading to the v0.9.

I don't think that missing one release in the upgrade process is a good idea. If it's decided to do so, it should be done by the upstream developers, in order to succeed. Someone else without the knowledge could mess the entire translation database.

comment:42 follow-up: ↓ 44 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

The packages have been put for review:

  1. transifex: bug # 645752

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645752

  1. Django-south: bug # 645759

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645759

  1. django-ajax-selects: bug # 645760

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645760

  1. django-threadedcomments: bug # 645761

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645761

  1. django-staticfiles: bug # 645762

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645762

  1. django-addons: bug # 645764

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645764

comment:43 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

  • Cc gomix added

comment:44 in reply to: ↑ 42 ; follow-up: ↓ 45 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

Replying to beckerde:

The packages have been put for review:

  1. transifex: bug # 645752

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645752

This bug has converted to tracking bug for the other dependencies. It is waiting for the others to complete successfully.

  1. Django-south: bug # 645759

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645759

Finished.

  1. django-ajax-selects: bug # 645760

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645760

This package is waiting for review. Gomix will work on it as soon as he can. Perhaps Gianluca (giallu) can help us with this too.

  1. django-threadedcomments: bug # 645761

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645761

Pushed to updates-testing repos.

  1. django-staticfiles: bug # 645762

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645762

Pushed to updates-testing repos.

  1. django-addons: bug # 645764

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645764

Pushed to updates-testing repos.

It really took too much longer than I first thought it would take to create these new packages.

kind regards

Domingo Becker

comment:45 in reply to: ↑ 44 ; follow-up: ↓ 46 Changed 3 years ago by giallu

Replying to beckerde:

  1. django-ajax-selects: bug # 645760

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645760

This package is waiting for review. Gomix will work on it as soon as he can. Perhaps Gianluca (giallu) can help us with this too.

Sure. I think I can kick off it this week end.

comment:46 in reply to: ↑ 45 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

Replying to giallu:

Replying to beckerde:

  1. django-ajax-selects: bug # 645760

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645760

This package is waiting for review. Gomix will work on it as soon as he can. Perhaps Gianluca (giallu) can help us with this too.

Sure. I think I can kick off it this week end.

Many thanks to Gianluca for the review. The package has been pushed to updates-testing repos.

As soon as I can, I will test the packages again in a F13 box to check if I succeed installing Transifex. In the meantime, I will notify bug #645752 [1] that the bugs it depends on were completed. Later I will test on an EL5 i686 box.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645752

comment:47 follow-up: ↓ 49 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

Today I tested the installation of Transifex in a F13 box, and it installs and runs well right out of the packages.

I detected a new dependency, python-pygooglechart, so I updated bug #645752 [1] accordingly.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645752

comment:48 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

Important Note for Updating the Server to RHEL 6

Transifex 0.9.0 requires django-1.1.x and does not work with newer versions. RHEL 6 has a newer version, that seems to be django-1.2.x series.

If someone needs the complete django stack version used in the tests, it's the one that would use today in a F13 box just installed. As the updates move on, it may be broken in the future, but if someone needs the list of packages and versions, just let me know.

comment:49 in reply to: ↑ 47 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

Replying to beckerde:

I detected a new dependency, python-pygooglechart, so I updated bug #645752 [1] accordingly.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645752

As this bug was not moving at all, I applied for maintainer for transifex package in epel 5 and epel 6, and co-maintainer in F13 and F14.

Transifex 0.9.0 has been pushed to updates-testing today, as well as the other 4 new packages.

I had a minor issue with 3 of the new packages not being tagged as an update candidate in Fedora epel 5 and 6. I don't know what this means, but I see they are not in Fedora epel 5 updates-testing like the others (including transifex). I couldn't solve it today because I ran out of time.

comment:50 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

For the final installation test on a CentOS 5 box, it was necessary to fix some issues with django-addons package, which didn't make it to el5 repos because of a requires sentence in the python code.

With the help of upstream and Toshio, it was fixed today, and the update has been successfully pushed to Fedora EPEL 5.

As soon as the package reaches updates-testing, I will test it on a production server. If I succeed, I will start working with a staging server in Fedora infrastructure testing the upgrade and the new version. In time, we will need the help of translators to test as much as we can the new Transifex version.

Many thanks to Toshio, again, for his confidence in me. He sponsored me in this task.

Glezos and diegobz, I will need your help when working with the staging server. Remember I don't know about Transifex internals.

comment:51 follow-up: ↓ 52 Changed 3 years ago by shaiton

Thank you Beckerde, transifex 0.9 and its dependencies are now in stable repos (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645752#c12 )

Now, we just have to wait the infra to set up a staging instance, right?

comment:52 in reply to: ↑ 51 ; follow-up: ↓ 54 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

Replying to shaiton:

Thank you Beckerde, transifex 0.9 and its dependencies are now in stable repos (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=645752#c12 )

Now, we just have to wait the infra to set up a staging instance, right?

No.

I pushed all packages to stable because I tested them to be so.

I'm installing the staging instance (Toshio sponsored me to join sysadmin-web group), but with Diego we found a new dependency problem: Transifex needs Django-south 0.7.3 and not 0.7.2.

The main issue is that django doesn't give good error messages, which made it difficult the detection of the source of the problem.

Django-south package has been pushed to epel-testing repo [1], and I'm just waiting for its availability. It usually doesn't take more than 24 hs. After that, I will need some comments in the update [2] (with a fas account) for the package to reach stable repo faster.

I want to thank Diego (diegobz) because I could not have done it without his help.

I didn't update this ticket because I was waiting to have the staging instance up and running.

[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Django-south

[2] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/Django-south-0.7.3-1.el5

comment:53 Changed 3 years ago by vpv

  • Cc vpv added

comment:54 in reply to: ↑ 52 Changed 3 years ago by beckerde

Replying to beckerde:

I'm installing the staging instance (Toshio sponsored me to join sysadmin-web group)...

An update. For anyone interested, the staging instance is at

https://translate.stg.fedoraproject.org

It is using version 0.9.1 (I started with 0.9.0) and it became stable since Dec 24, but we (diegobz and me) are working with it since three weeks ago. In the beginning, I was fighting against puppet, because it was undoing transifex configuration files. Transifex works fine when I disable puppet. It's something I must work out with some admin guy with puppet knowledge.

The staging instance will be loaded with some projects in order to let translators test it.

Some issues should be discussed in trans list, and Diego will send the message to the list as soon as he can.

Happy new year!

comment:55 follow-ups: ↓ 56 ↓ 57 Changed 3 years ago by ricky

  • Keywords meeting added

Hey, an update for people CCed on this ticket, we spoke about this at FUDCon, and we all seem to agree that moving translations to tx.net is a good idea. More talks about this should happen in the next infra meeting.

comment:56 in reply to: ↑ 55 Changed 3 years ago by noriko

I like to join the meeting, when is it held?

Replying to ricky:

Hey, an update for people CCed on this ticket, we spoke about this at FUDCon, and we all seem to agree that moving translations to tx.net is a good idea. More talks about this should happen in the next infra meeting.

comment:57 in reply to: ↑ 55 Changed 3 years ago by runab

  • Cc runab added

Replying to ricky:

Hey, an update for people CCed on this ticket, we spoke about this at FUDCon, and we all seem to agree that moving translations to tx.net is a good idea.

Hi Ricky, Is there an event report or summary of this discussion available publicly?

Thanks.

comment:58 Changed 3 years ago by ricky

Infrastructure meetings are 20:00 UTC on Thursdays - this didn't come up last meeting since a bunch of people (like glezos) were at FOSDEM. I've pinged glezos to find out when he can discuss this at a meeting, and I'll update this ticket with the date.

Here's a quick summary of the FUDCon discussion:

We aren't supporting transifex very well. It's usually broken/slow, and translators are finding it easier to commit to git directly. This is due to a lack of people joining the infrastructure team and committing to maintaining the app.

We all agreed that moving to tx.net solves all of these problems - we asked spot if there were any legal/CLA issues with moving to tx.net, and he said it shouldn't be a problem.

And that's basically what we discussed at FUDCon - we did not discuss what our requirements are for user auth (if any) or how it'd affect the Fedora l10n team workflow, which is why we'd love l10n people to come and give their perspective.

comment:59 Changed 3 years ago by tezcatl

  • Cc tezcatl added

comment:60 Changed 3 years ago by glezos

FYI, the migration is being tracked here:

https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2605

comment:61 Changed 3 years ago by kevin

  • Status changed from new to closed
  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Cc kevin added

Fedora is retiring it's translate.fedoraproject.org transifex instance and asking projects that currently use it to migrate to fedora.transifex.net.

Please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Migration_to_transifex.net and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ_on_migration_to_Transifex.net for more information.

If your issue or problem persists after this migration, please refile it at: http://getsatisfaction.com/indifex/products/indifex_transifex

Thanks

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.