[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Proposel: the way of DDTP back to ddtp.debian.org


The past:

DDTP ( Debian Description Translation Project) started as privat
project on my server.

In the early 2000s I moved it to ddtp.debian.org (on gluck). The DDTP
had only a mail interface in the past, but with review process.
After the crash of gluck, we put it on ddtp.debian.net, sponsorted by
the Junta de Extremadura. Thanks for that support.

Kleptop write a 'Satellite System' of the DDTP, the ddtss,  as
'privat' Web-Mail-Gateway.

After some experiments with pootle, we add the ddtss as extra public
web interface.

The present:

The DDTP has three parts:
 - DDT (Debian Description Tracking), that daily tracks the
   descriptions, update the Database, has a read only web interface to
   this database.
 - the DDTS (Debian Description Translation Server), the mail
   interface, to submit new translations.
 - the DDTSS (DDTS Satellite), the public web interface with his own
   review process, this own database.

The future:

After some ups and downs we now can go back to a debian.org machine...

Additionally churro (that host ddtp.debian.org and i18n.debian.org)
has some HW-Problem. Every 3-4 dayes we get a segfault of some

Since some weeks, we work an a new, clean ddtp:
 - Nicolas make a cleanup of the scripts for i18n and ddtp (during
 - kleptop start a rewrite of the web interface
 - grisu add some new stuff for the web interface, make some bug
   fixing and code on the new web interface

But IMHO we don't have a lot of time because of the HW-problems of

I propose:

 - package DDT (this make the daily update of the DDTP-Database)
 - package DDTSS (the web interface of DDTP)
 - install both on ddtp.debian.org
 - test this system and after this
 - switch from .net to .org

With this we will lost the mail interface. (for some time...)

I like to rewrite the mail interface anyway after finished the
web interface. The new mail interface will have the same features like
the web interface (with review process, etc.)

Comments about this?


Reply to: