[Openstack-i18n] How do we manage glossary?
amotoki at gmail.com
Tue Jan 5 11:09:09 UTC 2016
2016-01-05 18:00 GMT+09:00 Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc at cn.ibm.com>:
> Thank you for the patch, Akihiro.
> I think it's easier to discuss in email.
> So I copied your comments in your patch here.
>> Expected workflow:
>> * add an entry to the master glossary:
>> - Update glossary/master.yaml and review it on gerrit
>> - Once approved, glossary-tool sync will update per-language glossary
>> files and propose the update to gerrit (jenkins jos)
> In your design, when the changes to master.yaml is approved, how to trigger
> the jenkins job ? using a tag ?
> I think we could add one more action in this Jenkins job: automatically send
> an email to i18n to notify that the glossary is changed.
We can use 'post' pipeline to trigger some jobs when each change is merged.
>> * update per-language glossary:
>> - Each language team upload a proposed glossary to gerrit. A language team
>> members review it and once they have a consensus i18n core reviewer merges
>> it into the repository.
>> - Once approved, a corresponding glossary PO file is generated and
>> uploaded to Zanata. (glossary-tool write-po and jenkins job)
> In your design, translators will not use translation editor in Zanata to
> translate glossary.
> Translators will propose the glossary translation to gerrit.
> I don't know if translators have enough training to commit a patch.
> They may understand how to use Zanata more than how to use gerrit.
> There is no commands to support uploading glossary to Zanata.
> So the action to upload po files have to be executed manually.
I think uploading glossary can be done by Jenkins job triggered by
'post' job as well.
I agree that translators are familiar with Zanata rather than Gerrit
to some extent.
However, my question is still how to keep discussion contexts (or
It seems Zanata history is associated with Zanata internal resource ID.
I am afraid it can be easily lost and we cannot recover it :-(
> How do you think if we change to:
> - Update glossary/master.yaml and review it on gerrit.
> - Once approved, glossary-tool sync will update per-language glossary files
> and propose the update to gerrit (jenkins jos).
> - The jenkins job will upload pot file in Zanata.
> - The jenkins job will send email to i18n to notify the change.
> - Translators log in to Zanata to translate.
> - Jenkins job download po files to i18n repository.
> - Zanata admin automatic update Zanata glossary.
Again, how can we maintain discussion contexts?
On the other hand, I might be thinking "context" too much.
If we go to the above way you mentioned,
I think we need to maintain discussion contexts in other places.
If the team suggests to do so, I am okay.
Japanese team actually maintains it in OpenStack wiki and it works mostly well
except that we need to sync glossary manually, but it might be a small thing
compared to keep "context". Keeping "context" will save time to explain why
we choose THIS in our current glossary. If we do not have it, we need to
explain same things to new contributors again and again, and this will increase
the barrier to new contributors.
>> * syntax when a review is proposed
>>- 'glossary-tool' check verifies if YAML data is valid. It can be a part of
>> pep8 target.
> Good to have syntax check.
> BTW, how do you think the advantage of YAML file, comparing with po and pot
> Because if we use po and pot files directly, we could put "note" as comments
> in pot files.
> Do you want "note" also be translated ?
The only reason is YAML file is human-friendly and easy to edit by text editors.
I don't think it is a good idea to edit PO file directly.
The format is not human-friendly and we can easily make mistakes in
editing PO files.
"note" in a PO file will be overridden if the glossary is downloaded
This means we need to manage PO files directly in our git repo.
I don't think maintaining PO files is more difficult than maintaining
Finally, I would like to purge ancient glossary on Zanata as soon as possible.
The current glossary harms translation and provides no value.
> Akihiro Motoki <amotoki at gmail.com> wrote on 2016/01/05 07:05:51:
>> From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki at gmail.com>
>> To: Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM at IBMCN
>> Cc: "openstack-i18n at lists.openstack.org"
>> <Openstack-i18n at lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: 2016/01/05 07:07
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-i18n] How do we manage glossary?
>> Hi Daisy and the team,
>> 2015-12-17 19:35 GMT+09:00 Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc at cn.ibm.com>:
>> > Hi, Akihiro
>> > Please let me know your comments to https://review.openstack.org/258924
>> I commented your above review.
>> I proposed a counter proposal https://review.openstack.org/261767.
>> This is just an idea. I am open to the input.
>> Comments inline below.
>> > Answers to your question:
>> > 1. Context
>> > The current solution in my patch could not satisfy this requirement
>> > about
>> > context.
>> > If we want to put context to glossary, we need to develop our own
>> > extension
>> > of sphinx-build.
>> > How do you think the priority to support context ?
>> IMHO supporting contexts is important to make discussion on glossary
>> As you can see in Japanese glossary on OpenStack wiki , I believe
>> that discussion contexts
>> are important for further discussions and it also helps new
>> contributors understand the background.
>> In my proposal https://review.openstack.org/261767,
>> we maintain all contexts in YAML glossary files.
>> > 2. Process
>> > If people want to change the glossary, e.g. add, update, change the
>> > comments, add coments
>> > following process is designed.
>> > a> the requestor submits a patch to i18n repo
>> > b> core team approve the patch
>> > c> the auto uploading process is triggered. terminology.pot is uploaded
>> > to
>> > Zanata for translation
>> > d> translators finish translation
>> > e> Zanata admin manually patch terminology.pot and its translationpo
>> > files,
>> > and upload to Zanata
>> IMO the glossary needs to be reviewed more carefully compared to
>> regular translations.
>> In regular translations, all translated strings are imported, but for
>> glossary it is better that
>> only reviewed strings are imported. Another choice is to use gerrit
>> for the glossary review.
>> My proposal https://review.openstack.org/261767 implements the latter
>> > Best regards
>> > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)
>> > Akihiro Motoki <amotoki at gmail.com> wrote on 2015/12/02 02:29:44:
>> >> From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki at gmail.com>
>> >> To: "openstack-i18n at lists.openstack.org"
>> >> <Openstack-i18n at lists.openstack.org>
>> >> Date: 2015/12/02 02:32
>> >> Subject: [Openstack-i18n] How do we manage glossary?
>> >> Hi team,
>> >> Recently we added the glossary to the i18n repo .
>> >> I wonder how we can manage the glossary and am sending this mail.
>> >> The glossary can be referred to in Zanata, so it would be useful.
>> >> Mainly I have two questions.
>> >> The first point is what is the expected process to manage the glossary.
>> >> How can we update the glossary?
>> >> When is it uploaded to Zanata for translations?
>> >> The second point is how we can have the context.
>> >> I think the second point is also important.
>> >> Each entry in our glossary has some background, for example
>> >> why we reach the current consensus.
>> >> This kind of context is important to discuss for further improvements.
>> >> I updated the glossary for Japanese translation last week
>> >> and I added various description about backgrounds of the glossary.
>> >> I feel it is important to keep the context.
>> >> How can we manage the context?
>> >> I don't have a good idea now.
>> >> I would like to raise these questions for broader discussion.
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Akihiro
>> >>  http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/i18n/tree/i18n
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Openstack-i18n mailing list
>> >> Openstack-i18n at lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n
More information about the Openstack-i18n