[OpenStack-I18n] [openstack-dev] [i18n] [glance] ESL question 'shared' vs 'shareable'
Ian Y. Choi
ianyrchoi at gmail.com
Wed Nov 16 21:46:27 UTC 2016
As a Korean translator, I also quite agree with the idea.
Some images with "shared" state but actually not shared yet would be
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.
I am copying openstack-i18n at 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
With many thanks,
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
>> . 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 , 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?
> 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.
>>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/396919/
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-I18n