Hello devs,
As a Korean translator, I also quite agree with the idea.
Some images with "shared" state but actually not shared yet would be
awkward,
and "shareable" word would cover such context
: those images can be shard but may not be shared yet (although the
addition of "image members"is needed)
or already shared.
Hello translators,
I am copying openstack-i...@lists.openstack.org on this.
Would you pleased think about this and share your thoughts?
(Or please attend to the next i18n IRC meeting about in 9-10 hours and
tell me.)
With many thanks,
/Ian
Sean McGinnis wrote on 11/17/2016 1:44 AM:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 04:04:52PM +0000, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
Hello Translators,
We're having a discussion about a new image "visibility" value for Glance,
and before we go too far, it would be helpful to know whether what we're
worried about is going to matter for ESL people.
Here's the situation: Since the Diablo release, Glance end users have had
the ability to share images with other cloud users by adding "members" to
the image. We call those "shared images". Previously, we haven't had a
special "visibility" keyword for these, but we are introducing one now
[0]. Here's the problem introduced by that change:
(1) Members can only be added to an image if its current visibility value
allows for it. We're going to make this an explicit visibility state that
we ware proposing to call 'shared'.
(2) An image with visibility == 'shared', however, isn't actually
accessible to other users unless they are added as "image members". So
it's going to be possible for a user to have some images with visibility
== 'shared', but they aren't *really* shared with anyone yet.
(3) For reasons outlined on [0], we're proposing to make this new
visibility the default value in Glance. This will enable the current
sharing workflow to work in a backward-compatible way. But some people
are worried that users will panic when they see that their new images have
visibility == 'shared' (even though no other users have access to such
images until "image members" are added).
(4) To address this, we're thinking that maybe the identifier for this
kind of image visibility should be 'shareable'.
Finally, here's my question. For an ESL person looking at these two
identifiers (which, as identifiers, won't be translated):
* shared
* shareable
Are the above so similar that the nuances of the discussion above would be
lost anyway? In other words, are we just bikeshedding here, or is there a
clear distinction? What I mean is, is the panic described above likely or
unlikely to happen for an ESL person?
thanks,
brian
Good question. I think technically it would be shareable, which would
mean that it then able to be shared.
Realistically though, in my opinion, calling it shared to denote that it
_can be_ shared is probably intuitive enough that there wouldn't be any
confusion about the naming.
My 2 cents.
[0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/396919/
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
