- OpenStack-I18n - lists.openstack.org

What's Up, Doc? 29 January 2016
by Lana Brindley 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi everyone, An incredibly hot week here in the antipodes, coupled with Australia Day has meant that I haven't been particularly productive this week. Luckily, the rest of you have picked up the slack, and things have been ticking along nicely. Thanks everyone :) == Progress towards Mitaka == 68 days to go! 368 bugs closed so far for this release. RST Conversions * All planned RST conversions are now complete! Reorganisations * Arch Guide ** https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+spec/archguide-mitaka-r… ** Contact the Ops Guide Speciality team: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/OpsGuide * User Guides ** https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+spec/user-guides-reorga… ** Contact the User Guide Speciality team: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/User_Guides DocImpact * After some discussion on the dev list, we're adjusting our approach to this problem. Watch this space. == Speciality Teams == '''HA Guide - Bogdan Dobrelya''' No update this week. '''Installation Guide - Christian Berendt''' AODH install instructions merged '''Networking Guide - Edgar Magana''' Networking guide versioning has been completed, we are publishing Liberty and Mitaka releases. Networking guide ToC has been updated and missing chapter have been assigned. Etherpad with the topic missing from the guide: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/networking-guide '''Security Guide - Nathaniel Dillon''' No update this week. '''User Guides - Joseph Robinson''' Team meetings started again this week, and the large point was an IA reorg after content merging. Other discussion point included checking in with Docs liasons for Sahara, Trove, Murano, and Magneto plus checking in with interested volunteers for the User Guide Team. '''Ops and Arch Guides - Shilla Saebi''' Reorganization of the architecture guide is on-going. We have a full team of volunteers on our wiki <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/OpsGuide>, but not much traction. We need more volunteers and we were looking to do a swarm in Manchester but not enough team members attending. Looking to maybe set one up for Austin. '''API Docs - Anne Gentle''' No update this week. '''Config Ref - Gauvain Pocentek''' No update this week. '''Training labs - Pranav Salunke, Roger Luethi''' Liberty support continues to make good progress. We can now launch an instance VM. Some clean up and reviewing still needs to be done. '''Training Guides - Matjaz Pancur''' Preparations for Austin Upstream training (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/271006/) New landing page for Training guides (http://docs.openstack.org/draft/training-guides/. '''Hypervisor Tuning Guide - Joe Topjian''' An update to to the Guide was posted back in December with a call for participation: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2015-December/0091… == Doc team meeting == Next meetings: US: Wednesday 3 February, 14:00 UTC APAC: Wednesday 10 February, 00:30 UTC Please go ahead and add any agenda items to the meeting page here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/DocTeamMeeting#Agenda_for_next_mee… Note that there is currently discussion about moving the US meeting four hours later to 20:00 UTC. If you have a strong opinion on this matter, make sure you weigh in on the mailing list thread: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2016-January/008206.html - -- Keep on doc'ing! Lana - -- Lana Brindley Technical Writer Rackspace Cloud Builders Australia http://lanabrindley.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWquVYAAoJELppzVb4+KUyBTQH/0M+ixT7g/MIePoZpFms5aSU SvLV/rAJe1dKbB2tNfq5ozNcWS/uMHB+w4bzHGjP+xexOvTUZNoBrKGLcufADMSS ekOMITnr69PLlXh5e+/G55/02sZUFmmq4ZC2xmDrgGbwZLohbLUA/L1G3o+oJGYy 2/KrNAQCutkEKTNwAN4NkA+cbSj8jM8UyVWfFzfEbywSmpmrrQyetEhfmZPj3g9t 7cUnqrRegHI7mwPGeLyM3O2bIj3CLKsmWDFEfzOfoUGDGDCQ6yGj8iv8u4PuA6Zt Mw041/PII0LWDCSvovYnsRoZXMcRGVFfWdBvrOVZaGZfVhZLK/2BrZPIr+r6EzA= =eKF8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [Openstack-i18n] IBM translations to contribute
by Akihiro Motoki 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

Hi Doug, First, I don't have any strong opinion on importing Mitaka translation contribution from IBM. Any decision is okay to me. The reason is described below. In addition, as an i18n active member, growing OpenStack translation folks is important but each language team should be a team. All comments below is as one of Japanese team reviewer who reviewed about 50% of strings (> 10000 messages) in Liberty release. I hope the same thing never happens in the Nxx release. Before going to the detail, I must apologize my following message is rude, but let me share my feeling as an active Japanese reviewer. 2016-01-13 0:02 GMT+09:00 Douglas Fish <drfish(a)us.ibm.com>: > Hi Akihiro, > > I understand your concern. These are translations that were completed > outside of Zanata, using our previous process. They were translated using > the same guidelines as the previous IBM contributions. While they are > professionally done and well tested, they have not been written to conform > to OpenStack community guidelines. It's likely any issues that existed in > the previous IBM translations will exist with these as well. Personally I was disappointed significantly with this. I am feeling that my effort to review Japanese IBM translations in Liberty cycle should not be done. I and some reviewers spent not small amount of time to review them because we believe our comments will be feedback-ed to Mitaka translations, but it turns out that it wasted the time. Regarding Japanese translations, the contributed translations did not have the enough quality that we could release them as-is from various points. * Not a small number of terminologies used were not natural to experienced OpenStack operators, * Strings were translated but it seems actual context where strings were used were not checked, especially substitutions (like %s, %(xxx)s), * There are many inconsistency with the existing team guidelines. (I have various experiences of translating Japanese certification exam for IT engineers and I believe I know what quality is ready for such purposes) We left many comments in Zanata but they are not referred at all.............. We, at least me, made these comments to share our guidelines..... In addition, Japanese translation team provides a lot of information including our glossary, contact points, discussion channels through OpenStack wiki page, but it does not work so far.... I will stop writing my feeling here. > I agree this is not a good long term way to complete translations. I'm not > sure if you are aware, but our Italian translation center has completed a > pilot of working directly in Zanata. Notice the high completion percentage > for Horizon Italian. I expect to have broader participation in this area > during the translation of Mitaka. It depends on the progress of translations of each language and I hope it works well. In addition, growing translation community is a good thing in the longer term. > We would like to contribute these translations to help with the OpenStack > translation effort. I understand that because they were not translated with > the same guidelines they may instead be burdensome to the translators. I > believe this is the purpose of creating the branch for offline translations: > so that language coordinators can evaluate if the translations are actually > beneficial to our OpenStack translation efforts, or if they are inconsistent > with the language's guidelines and more trouble than they are worth. I > certainly understand that creating and populating a branch does not mean > that these translations will actually be accepted. For Mitaka translation contribution, I don't have a strong opinion and either option is okay to me. If we talk about only Japanese translations of Mitaka release, server translations do not affect GUI translations (and CLI translation if any). According to our survey in Japan, most of all operators prefer to English messages. Considering these situations, I think Japanese translations of server projects can be shipped as-is without reviews. We can discuss the translation guidelines for Nxxx release translations to address inconsistencies and mismatches. > I'd like to have the branch created so that the review can take place. What > do you think? As mentioned above, I am okay with either decision. I am just concerned and disappointed with the fact that all translation efforts are being done completely separately and hope it never happens. Akihiro > > Doug > > > ----- Original message ----- > From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> > To: Douglas Fish/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: "openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org" > <openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [Openstack-i18n] IBM translations to contribute > Date: Mon, Jan 11, 2016 11:09 PM > > Hi Doug, > > Thanks for continuing the effort. > > I have two questions. > > First, why do we need to use a branch again. > We already set up the translation platform and IBM team can translate > on Zanata directly > as we discussed in Liberty cycle. There is no reason to use a branch > and push translation bursty again. > > Second, is existing community translation guideline per language team > honored in the contributed translations? > When talking about Japanese, we saw a lot of different translation > guidelines on wording in the last IBM translation contributed in > Liberty. > As a reviewer, we don't want to comment the same thing again. > After we Japanese review team reviewed Liberty contribution from IBM, > we don't receive any feedback/response/discussion from IBM team, > so I am afraid we need to do the similar again. It need to be avoided. > Otherwise reviewers will lose their energy. > Could you comment on the situation? > > Thanks, > Akihiro > > > 2016-01-12 12:54 GMT+09:00 Douglas Fish <drfish(a)us.ibm.com>: >> We have translations to contribute for languages >> de es fr it ja ko_KR pt_BR ru zh_CN zh_TW >> for ceilometer, cinder, glance, keystone, neutron, and nova >> >> These are additional translations performed by the same teams that >> translated our previous contributions. They have been reviewed and tested. >> I >> estimate up to 35K messages will be contributed across the 10 languages >> and >> 6 components. >> >> Following the process outlined here >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-i18n/2015-September/001388.h… >> I am requesting that a branch be created in Zanata to facilitate review of >> these translations by the language coordinators. >> >> Thanks >> >> Doug >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openstack-i18n mailing list >> Openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n >> > > > >

6 7

Fwd: [openstack-dev] [all][i18n] Rework of translation setup
by Andreas Jaeger 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

FYI, I'll copy resources around for python-* and oslo.* projects, Andreas -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [openstack-dev] [all][i18n] Rework of translation setup Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:13:50 +0100 From: Andreas Jaeger <aj(a)microfocus.com> Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org> Organization: SUSE Linux GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton , HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev(a)lists.openstack.org> Projects that want to setup translations for their repositories run into a few common problems and we're addressing these now to make the setup for everybody easier. The problems they run into came from limitations of the current infra scripts, so we rework the infra scripts. We want to have a simple and consistent setup for translations - with a sensible consistency. Right now it’s consistent for python projects but not sensible in some cases. See here for the full spec: http://specs.openstack.org/openstack-infra/infra-specs/specs/translation_se… We're working basically on two major changes: a) The same setup for django projects. b) Locate files for python projects in a better place. b) only affects olso.* and python-*client projects: We need to update setup.cfg, your i18n file and move the files from $reponame/locale/$reponame.pot to $modulename/locale/modulename.pot - so placing it in your source directory and not besides it. While we move files around, we also stopped syncing of translations for olso* and python-client projects. So, please review these changes quickly and merge them. For a) we will review each django project and send patches for them as well. Also, we make our scripts more robust - and will document this properly. If you have any questions, please reach out to us. We hope that this will make translation setup for projects easier, Akihiro Motoki & Andreas Jaeger -- Andreas Jaeger aj(a){suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126 __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Andreas Jaeger aj(a){suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

1 0

Re: [Openstack-i18n] IRC meeting today
by Jeremy Stanley 22 Jan '16

22 Jan '16

On 2016-01-22 14:17:23 +0800 (+0800), Ying Chun Guo wrote: [...] > Zanata has API to query translators activities. [...] Oh, that's excellent news! Maybe the update I heard we were still needing was so that we could let non-administrators query that? > Adding them to "extra ATCs" is a way. > Are there any other options to grant them the election rights ? At the moment you'll need to continue updating the extra-atcs list. The tool which queries our contributors in Gerrit could be extended to also query Zanata, but I haven't even seen the API documentation for that yet so I can't gauge how long it would take me to integrate into what I have. Longer term, of course we want this data source automatically integrated with our contributor listing tools. For the curious, https://review.openstack.org/263971 is the current state of development on the new framework I'm using for determining electoral rolls and qualifiers for contributor summit codes. -- Jeremy Stanley

1 0

IRC meeting today
by Ying Chun Guo 21 Jan '16

21 Jan '16

Hello, team We will have our regular meeting today, at 1300UTC in #openstack-meeting. I'm going to cover following topics: * Discussion: Glossary management process * Discussion: IBM contributions * Status update: Installation guide translation * Status update: Translation check website * Status update: Stackalytics feature Feel free to propose other topics if you like. Best regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)

3 3

What's Up, Doc? 22 January 2016
by Lana Brindley 21 Jan '16

21 Jan '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi everyone, We seem to be more or less back into the swing of things here in docs land this week, with our meeting schedule back up and running, and now our very first full-length newsletter for 2016! We only have two and a half months until Mitaka goes out, but we're in great shape so far, with 345 bugs dealt with, and all the planned RST conversions complete. Most of the discussion this week has been around API documentation and Fairy Slipper, Docs Tools and some site theme changes, and a little back and forth on meeting times. == Progress towards Mitaka == 75 days to go! 345 bugs closed so far for this release. RST Conversions * All RST conversions are now complete! Well done to all the contributors and reviewers who made this happen so quickly this time around. We are now, with only a couple of exceptions, completely converted. Great job :) Reorganisations * Arch Guide ** https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+spec/archguide-mitaka-r… ** Contact the Ops Guide Speciality team: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/OpsGuide * User Guides ** https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+spec/user-guides-reorga… ** Contact the User Guide Speciality team: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/User_Guides DocImpact * After some discussion on the dev list, we're adjusting our approach to this problem. Watch this space. == Speciality Teams == '''HA Guide - Bogdan Dobrelya''' Meeting moved http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2016-January/008209.html. Kenneth finished his Galera patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/263075/, there were also several patches from different contributors, so things are improving. '''Installation Guide - Christian Berendt''' AODH instructions near completion, EU/US meeting moved (Every two weeks (on even weeks) on Tuesday at 1600 UTC), APAC meeting will be dropped the next weeks if if not more participants join. '''Networking Guide - Edgar Magana''' No update this week. '''Security Guide - Nathaniel Dillon''' No update this week. '''User Guides - Joseph Robinson''' One patch combining Images and Instances content merged, and a patch on Shared File Systems is now available for review. User Guide team meetings are set to begin next Thursday, with guidelines for combining admin and cloud admin files a topic for discussion. '''Ops and Arch Guides - Shilla Saebi''' No update this week. '''API Docs - Anne Gentle''' Anne imported and triaged over 60 GitHub Issues into Launchpad bugs. Anne working on build jobs for making API docs with fairy-slipper: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/269809. Anne emailed over 25 individuals about the plans for API docs and answered follow-up questions. Karen worked on validated Swagger: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/266527/. Need to release fairy-slipper this week or next. '''Config Ref - Gauvain Pocentek''' No update this week. '''Training labs - Roger Luethi''' Liberty is making good progress, trying to get Liberty patches working. Early beginnings of Fedora support switched to CentOS. Copy-on-write disks for KVM. Bug fixing and refactoring, as usual. Early work on python port. Plan to host training labs on a web page. '''Training Guides - Matjaz Pancur''' German translation of the Upstream training (http://docs.openstack.org/de/upstream-training/) - this makes 3 full translations (en, de, ko_kr), ja is at 80%. A patch that enables direct bug reporting on the slides (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/259654/) several other patches. '''Hyperviser Tuning Guide - Joe Topjian''' No update this week. == Core Team Changes == The next core team review will occur on 1 February. In the meantime, it's probably a good time to go over what being a core means, and how the review system works. For more detail, see the Contributor Guide: http://docs.openstack.org/contributor-guide/docs-review.html Docs cores have the ability to +2 docs reviews, and they also have the ability to merge reviews. Reviews are merged by cores only once there's been *two* +2 votes, and at least one +1. There are very few exceptions to this rule, for changes that need to go through very quickly to resolve gate breakages or similar, but this rule holds in just about every situation. Cores are assigned based on merit, usually through the core review process that we do every month. During a core review, the PTL gathers statistics on reviews made, and patches created and merged, and uses that to determine who should be added to (or removed from) the core list. That then goes to a vote of the existing core team before being actioned and announced. Core team members also have the ability to nominate (and vote on) exceptional team members, where the statistics might not reflect the amount of effort they have put in. If you ever have any questions about becoming a docs core, or about getting your docs patch merged, you can contact the team on the usual docs mailing list, or ping any of us on IRC. == Doc team meeting == The US team meeting was held last week, you can read the minutes here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/MeetingLogs#2016-01-20 Next meetings: APAC: Wednesday 27 January, 00:30 UTC US: Wednesday 3 February, 14:00 UTC Please go ahead and add any agenda items to the meeting page here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/DocTeamMeeting#Agenda_for_next_mee… Note that there is currently discussion about moving the US meeting four hours later to 20:00 UTC. If you have a strong opinion on this matter, make sure you weigh in on the mailing list thread: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2016-January/008206.html - -- Keep on doc'ing! Lana - -- Lana Brindley Technical Writer Rackspace Cloud Builders Australia http://lanabrindley.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWoafKAAoJELppzVb4+KUyFR8H/1so79V/BvFSAehklcbyDmZG JYkHQwrMUiTREN0y4l2ccegtgYWKeXEd01holKTMxxzR1KAcibi2eBMGjizNbIdt L8Add2BIPB8zwlqR0zrBAVKzecUth4EpvWLBTU4UDuHIHoF6cyOL3RZWKmkEg7/o GD7H/Yt264qFFPmQ8t8Flq5mUE892s2aReDVFkXPmmkNzBtIGDmzu13P6Y5zX4YX xzUSWJmBDTJPaz/0IsG8Sc46R3gs15hV7wtcCPwVtQXVZ18mKkYYz02zKQzpW518 Z8ysKgwHYkRhn+cxgsg10bV8/NePyxvgvHnknTLpbBZOV700kCmSTEmP3V3LUQw= =6VAi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[OpenStack-i18n] Install guide finished translated Korean
by SungJin Kang 19 Jan '16

19 Jan '16

Hi, Install guide finished transtated ko_KR and review too. How to add draft site[1]? Thanks Sungjin. ps. not yet common-docs... [1]: http://docs.openstack.org/draft/draft-index.html

6 11

What's Up, Doc? 15 January
by Lana Brindley 14 Jan '16

14 Jan '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi everyone, Welcome to 2016! A short newsletter this week as I get my feet back under me after my vacation. I hope you all had a wonderful holiday period, and got some well-earned down time. I'm looking forward to working hard with you all over the next few months to get Mitaka out into the wild :) == Progress towards Mitaka == 82 days to go! 324 bugs closed so far for this release. RST Conversions * All RST conversions are now complete! Well done to all the contributors and reviewers who made this happen so quickly this time around. We are now, with only a couple of exceptions, completely converted. Great job :) Reorganisations * Arch Guide ** https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+spec/archguide-mitaka-r… ** Contact the Ops Guide Speciality team: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/OpsGuide * User Guides ** https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-manuals/+spec/user-guides-reorga… ** Contact the User Guide Speciality team: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/User_Guides DocImpact * After some discussion on the dev list, we're adjusting our approach to this problem. Watch this space. == Speciality Teams == No updates this week, as I'm totally disorganised. Next week for sure! == Core Team Changes == I would like to offer a warm welcome to Atsushi Sakai as our newest core team member. Welcome to the team :) We will resume regular reviews in February 2016. == Doc team meeting == There's been some confusion over the meeting schedule, but as far as I can tell, these are the next meeting dates: Next meetings: US: Wednesday 20 January, 14:00 UTC APAC: Wednesday 27 January, 00:30 UTC Please go ahead and add any agenda items to the meeting page here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/DocTeamMeeting#Agenda_for_next_mee… - -- Keep on doc'ing! Lana - -- Lana Brindley Technical Writer Rackspace Cloud Builders Australia http://lanabrindley.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWmHLwAAoJELppzVb4+KUydocH/30zQwOcQ7kOPSeWIYvGPJ6u /WO2Tv9QkoOZe4O7WulkTRXTsVTlr9lP3esANYf9Vys8E1720Wl3pPNL6YYJ8XCe 1WWIxZpZNiIRB86dfgJn6/oLdhNjAS6W6SvNHNKtecQ5m/6Kv0uRfpVHxw89BRBV +f5QvPnDsydUlKEamQJAyRWzKc6BnpM/AbgS20BL3/luhZpZI3V1Z2bnxbGJCRlD 10uAwY3+z6Oo3SCQI7HVe3TfZQDa6BBYPUK2KSlY5Kr8VjclEgy4tuootRd/4rva WCS4Z61XPvR6DQdLPS6RVCmCrkRtHd1yYeBZt5fP9GBDrXm2CUZipl13grZMXY8= =XuVl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

FW: [Bug 1534418] [NEW] Wrong Chinese translation in OpenStack Liberty install doc
by Kato, Tomoyuki 14 Jan '16

14 Jan '16

Hi Chinese team, Please take a look at the bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1534418 I can't understand what is wrong from the bug report =) > Subject: [Bug 1534418] [NEW] Wrong Chinese translation in OpenStack Liberty install doc > > Public bug reported: > > The original link is http://docs.openstack.org/liberty/install-guide-rdo/environment-ntp-control… > The translation draft link is http://docs.openstack.org/liberty/zh_CN/install-guide-rdo/environment-ntp-c… > > ** Affects: openstack-i18n > Importance: Undecided > Status: New > > ** Attachment added: "01.png" > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1534418/+attachment/4550272/+files/01.png > > -- > > Title: > Wrong Chinese translation in OpenStack Liberty install doc > > Status in openstack i18n: > New > > Bug description: > The original link is http://docs.openstack.org/liberty/install-guide-rdo/environment-ntp-control… > The translation draft link is > http://docs.openstack.org/liberty/zh_CN/install-guide-rdo/environment-ntp-c…

2 1

Re: [Openstack-i18n] How do we manage glossary?
by Akihiro Motoki 14 Jan '16

14 Jan '16

2016-01-05 18:00 GMT+09:00 Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc(a)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 history/background). 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 > files? > 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 from Zanata. 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 YAML files. Finally, I would like to purge ancient glossary on Zanata as soon as possible. The current glossary harms translation and provides no value. Akihiro > > Regards > Daisy > > > Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> wrote on 2016/01/05 07:05:51: > >> From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> >> To: Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM@IBMCN >> Cc: "openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org" >> <Openstack-i18n(a)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(a)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 >> productive. >> As you can see in Japanese glossary on OpenStack wiki [1], 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 >> option. >> >> Thought? >> >> Thanks, >> Akihiro >> >> > >> > Best regards >> > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) >> > >> > >> > Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> wrote on 2015/12/02 02:29:44: >> > >> >> From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> >> >> To: "openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org" >> >> <Openstack-i18n(a)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 [1]. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/i18n/tree/i18n >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Openstack-i18n mailing list >> >> Openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n >> >> >> > >> >

4 5

IBM translations to contribute
by Douglas Fish 12 Jan '16

12 Jan '16

2 2

[all][i18n] Proposed change for consistent setup of translation - up for review
by Andreas Jaeger 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Projects that want to have translations, need to setup their repository in very specific ways which lead to quite a few questions from some of you and also quite different solutions. Let's make this easier - and consistent. I've written a spec that aims to provide a consistent set up for the repositories and ask for your review and comments on it: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/262545/ Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger aj(a){suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

1 0

Re: [Openstack-i18n] How do we manage glossary - requirements priorities
by Akihiro Motoki 11 Jan '16

11 Jan '16

Thanks for initiating the effort. 2016-01-11 18:36 GMT+09:00 Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc(a)cn.ibm.com>: > Hello, team > > There are three possible solutions to manage glossaries and their > translations. > All of these solutions have their advantages and disadvantages. > I think we should prioritize the requirements firstly, then we make the > choice based on the requirements. > Here I list some requirements. > I would like to suggest to distinguish "master glossary" (in the source language) and "per-language glossary" in this discussion. Theoretically speaking, each language team can have its own glossary, but IIUC Zanata glossary does not allows it and we need to have a common glossary entries. As the assumption of this discussion, should we assume the current enabled feature in Zanata or can we assume to enhancing Zanata? I would suggest to distinguish 'requirements' and the current limitation of Zanata. 'requirement' should not have assumption based on 'the current limitation of Zanata'. Now, I am looking through the listed items. #0 each language team can manage their glossary without 'admin' role. At least, language coordinator and reviewers should be allowed to do it. To me, this is the top priority "must to have". > #1. Save glossaries in i18n repo "nice to have" "master" or "per-language"? Based on #2 below, it seems "master glossary". > #2. Translate and review with Zanata editor, and enable the auto sync > between Zanata editor and i18n repo. In #2, it seems two things are mixed. The first part "Translate and review with Zanata editor", yes it is a requirement. The second part is just a process. It is not a requirement, i.e., "nice to have". > #3. View comments while translating "Must to have" (as the second priority) I believe it is "Must to have" but it is not a top priority because the top priority to me is that each language is allowed to maintain their glossary without 'admin' privilege. > #4. Review the new added glossary by Gerrit "not necessary" I am not sure this needs to be done in Gerrit. If we have a way to add a new entry in Zanata, it is sufficient as well. I am not sure what assumption you have. > #5. View the list of glossaries and their comments in i18n documents. "not necessary" I don't think it is a requirement. I hope the list of glossary on Zanata instead as Transfix does. When we go to "Glossary" link at the top of Zanata UI https://translate.openstack.org/glossary/view.seam, we see a list of languages but when we click a language name, we will get a list of members of each language team. It is a confusing behavior and we expect a glossary in each language. > #6. Keep the history of glossary translations and discussions. "must to have" (as the second priority) Yes. this is important! > > Please let me know your thoughts to these requirements. > You can add comment "Must support", "good to have", and "not necessary" to > each requirement, > and order these requirements by the priority in your mind. > If you have other requirements, feel free to add. /FYI/ I abandoned my reviews to keep my review list small. Feel free to restore them if necessary even after this discussion have a consensus. Thanks, Akihiro > > For your reference, here are the three possible solutions: > > - Solution 1 Save glossaries in pot file and translations in po files. > The current solution in repo: openstack/i18n > Support requirement #1 , #2 and #4 > ( @Alex, please help to verify if #3 and #6 could be satisfied in this > solution.) > > - Solution 2 Save glossaries in rst file and translations in po files. > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/258924/ > Support requirement #1, #2, and #4, #5 > > - Solution 3 Save glossaries in YAML file and translations in YAML files. > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/261767/ > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/262710/ > Support requirement #1, #3 and #4, #6 > > Your input will help us to make a team decision. > Thank you. > Best regards > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) > > > Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> wrote on 2016/01/05 19:09:09: > >> From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> >> To: Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM@IBMCN >> Cc: "openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org" >> <Openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org> >> Date: 2016/01/05 19:10 >> Subject: Re: [Openstack-i18n] How do we manage glossary? >> >> 2016-01-05 18:00 GMT+09:00 Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc(a)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 >> history/background). >> 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 >> > files? >> > 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 >> from Zanata. >> 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 >> YAML files. >> >> >> Finally, I would like to purge ancient glossary on Zanata as soon >> aspossible. >> The current glossary harms translation and provides no value. >> >> Akihiro >> >> >> > >> > Regards >> > Daisy >> > >> > >> > Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> wrote on 2016/01/05 07:05:51: >> > >> >> From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> >> >> To: Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM@IBMCN >> >> Cc: "openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org" >> >> <Openstack-i18n(a)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(a)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 >> >> productive. >> >> As you can see in Japanese glossary on OpenStack wiki [1], 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 >> >> option. >> >> >> >> Thought? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Akihiro >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Best regards >> >> > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> wrote on 2015/12/02 02:29:44: >> >> > >> >> >> From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> To: "openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org" >> >> >> <Openstack-i18n(a)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 [1]. >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/i18n/tree/i18n >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Openstack-i18n mailing list >> >> >> Openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org >> >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >

1 0

Austin OpenStack Summit call-for-papers is open
by Ying Chun Guo 10 Jan '16

10 Jan '16

Hello, team The next OpenStack Summit will take place on April 25-29 in Austin, Texas, US. The Call for Papers is opened and will close on Feb 1st. You could find details on the tracks and process on the official page: https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/call-for-speakers/. I think following tracks are much related with our work. You are welcomed to submit speech proposals to these tracks. * Project Updates * How to Contribute * Upstream Development * Working Groups The track "Working Groups" is special. It is for collaborative working sessions rather than presentations. It will be in smaller rooms and video record will not be served. We can organize I18n/translations related working sessions in this track. If you have any speeches or discussion topics related with I18n/translations, you can contact with me. I'm happy to help review and schedule. BTW, the travel support program is opened at: https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/austin-and-travel/#travel-supp… . The deadline is Feb 9. Thank you. Best regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)

1 0

Re: [Openstack-i18n] Czech translation error
by Akihiro Motoki 07 Jan '16

07 Jan '16

I am not sure it is a bug of the source string. It works as the source language. The similar example is shown in the gettext documentation I quoted in the first mail. Apart from the warning you mentioned, after we change msgstr[0] to contain %s in a translation, the error disappears. IMHO, it is a bug of GNU gettext. On the other hand, I agree it is less confusing if the source string contains %s. Feel free to file a bug to horizon with a background. Akihiro 2016-01-07 18:19 GMT+09:00 Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc(a)cn.ibm.com>: > Hi, Akihiro > > It is a bug in the source code, isn't it ? > I don't see the translations are wrong. > > msgid is "Instance launched." > We cannot simply add %s to msgstr[0]. > Zanata will report a warning: Unexpected variable: %s > > I think the source string "Instance launched." should add %s firstly. > "Instance launched." should be changed to "Instance %s launched." > And then, the translation msgstr[0] should add %s correspondingly. > > Best regards > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) > > > Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> wrote on 2016/01/07 01:44:42: > >> From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> >> To: "openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org" >> <Openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org> >> Date: 2016/01/07 01:46 >> Subject: [Openstack-i18n] Czech translation error > >> >> Hi Czech language team and i18n Zanata admin, >> >> Horizon translation import is broken due to Czech translation. >> This blocks all translation imports of horizon. >> Could you fix it? >> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/259677 >> >> The error is like this: >> http://logs.openstack.org/77/259677/15/check/gate-horizon-dsvm- >> integration/e5ed03e/logs/devstacklog.txt.gz#_2016-01-02_17_55_04_608 >> 2016-01-02 17:55:04.608 | CommandError: Execution of msgfmt failed: >> /opt/stack/new/horizon/openstack_dashboard/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/ >> djangojs.po:655: >> number of format specifications in 'msgid_plural' and 'msgstr[0]' does >> not match >> 2016-01-02 17:55:04.608 | msgfmt: found 1 fatal error >> >> The error point is: >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/259677/15/openstack_dashboard/ >> locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/djangojs.po >> >> I think we need to add %s to msgstr[0] to avoid msgfmt error. >> >> #, python-format >> msgid "Instance launched." >> msgid_plural "%s instances launched." >> msgstr[0] "Instance spuštěna. >> msgstr[1] "Spuštěny %s instance." >> msgstr[2] "Spuštěno %s instancí." >> >> >> BTW, I am not sure this is valid according to GNU gettext documentation >> [1], >> but msgfmt actually does not support this form. >> In the example of [1], msgid does not contain %s but all msgstr[n] contain >> %s. >> Although there is no explicit description, %s must be contained in all >> msgstr[n]. >> To avoid confusion, it is better to contain %s in 'msgid' (singular >> form) as well. >> >> [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/ >> Translating-plural-forms.html >> >> >> Akihiro >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openstack-i18n mailing list >> Openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n >

3 2

Czech translation error
by Akihiro Motoki 07 Jan '16

07 Jan '16

Hi Czech language team and i18n Zanata admin, Horizon translation import is broken due to Czech translation. This blocks all translation imports of horizon. Could you fix it? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/259677 The error is like this: http://logs.openstack.org/77/259677/15/check/gate-horizon-dsvm-integration/… 2016-01-02 17:55:04.608 | CommandError: Execution of msgfmt failed: /opt/stack/new/horizon/openstack_dashboard/locale/cs/LC_MESSAGES/djangojs.po:655: number of format specifications in 'msgid_plural' and 'msgstr[0]' does not match 2016-01-02 17:55:04.608 | msgfmt: found 1 fatal error The error point is: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/259677/15/openstack_dashboard/locale/cs/LC… I think we need to add %s to msgstr[0] to avoid msgfmt error. #, python-format msgid "Instance launched." msgid_plural "%s instances launched." msgstr[0] "Instance spuštěna. msgstr[1] "Spuštěny %s instance." msgstr[2] "Spuštěno %s instancí." BTW, I am not sure this is valid according to GNU gettext documentation [1], but msgfmt actually does not support this form. In the example of [1], msgid does not contain %s but all msgstr[n] contain %s. Although there is no explicit description, %s must be contained in all msgstr[n]. To avoid confusion, it is better to contain %s in 'msgid' (singular form) as well. [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/Translating-plural-fo… Akihiro

4 4

IRC meeting today
by Ying Chun Guo 06 Jan '16

06 Jan '16

Hello, team I hope you had a good new year holiday. We will have our first IRC meeting in 2016 today, at 0600UTC in #openstack-meeting. I'm going to cover following topics: * Glossary management process discussion * Open discussions Feel free to propose other topics if you like. Best regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)

2 1

Re: [Openstack-i18n] How do we manage glossary?
by Kato, Tomoyuki 05 Jan '16

05 Jan '16

> >> 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. I'm not fully contexted, but generally agree to 'post' pipeline idea. KATO Tomoyuki

1 0

Fw: [OpenStack-docs] Travel support for Summit, April 25-29, Austin, TX
by Ying Chun Guo 05 Jan '16

05 Jan '16

Hi, team If you need the travel support for Austin Summit, you could apply now. Best regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) ----- Forwarded by Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM on 2016/01/05 17:01 ----- Anne Gentle <annegentle(a)justwriteclick.com> wrote on 2016/01/05 01:43:00: > From: Anne Gentle <annegentle(a)justwriteclick.com> > To: "openstack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org" <openstack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org> > Date: 2016/01/05 01:45 > Subject: [OpenStack-docs] Travel support for Summit, April 25-29, Austin, TX > > Hi all, > Want to be sure that documentarians know about the travel support > program to get contributors to the Summit. Read all about it and apply here: > > https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/austin-and-travel/#travel-supp… > > Thanks, > Anne > > -- > Anne Gentle > Rackspace > Principal Engineer > www.justwriteclick.com_______________________________________________ > OpenStack-docs mailing list > OpenStack-docs(a)lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs

1 0

Re: [Openstack-i18n] How do we manage glossary?
by Akihiro Motoki 05 Jan '16

05 Jan '16

Hi Daisy and the team, 2015-12-17 19:35 GMT+09:00 Ying Chun Guo <guoyingc(a)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 productive. As you can see in Japanese glossary on OpenStack wiki [1], 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 translation po 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 option. Thought? Thanks, Akihiro > > Best regards > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) > > > Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> wrote on 2015/12/02 02:29:44: > >> From: Akihiro Motoki <amotoki(a)gmail.com> >> To: "openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org" >> <Openstack-i18n(a)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 [1]. >> 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 >> >> [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/i18n/tree/i18n >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openstack-i18n mailing list >> Openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n >> >

2 1

Re: [Openstack-i18n] Transifex
by Ian Y. Choi 22 Dec '15

22 Dec '15

Hello Daisy, Thank you so much for your kind explanation. I agree that all of translation data are successfully moved to Zanata, and I have no objection to remove current Transifex not to be confused for OpenStack translation contributor candidates. I just worried that some guys might want to see previous Transifex history: who contributed to OpenStack translations later, since, the author of translation results from Transifex to Zanata is "OpenStack Infra", not actual translators, as far as I know. However, I also think that it is very difficult to keep all the history to public. For my OpenStack translation stuff, I do not need Transifex any more. So if other translators also do not need to see to track previous translators in Transifex, then there is no more additional reason to remove Transifex except querying statistics. And one more idea: although some previous translators are not regarded as ATC, I think it would be much better to mention their Transifex ID (at least) to acknowledge their previous contribution or credit on somewhere, such as OpenStack wiki. Let's discuss on today IRC meeting :) With many thanks, /Ian Ying Chun Guo wrote on 12/17/2015 2:39 PM: > > Ian Y, > > I will not use the official i18n repo to store those materials. > I plan to store it in a personal repo in github, > just to keep the history. > > We have moved all data into Zanata while we migrated to Zanata in > September. > 4 months passed, we didn't get any complains about any missing data. > We could be sure that all data have been moved to the new tool. > So it's not that necessary to back up. > > The only reason to support to not delete OpenStack from Transifex is that: > it's easy to query the contribution data in any certain period through > the web UI of Transifex. > If we remove OpenStack from Transifex, we will lost the ability to query. > I could export the contribution data for a certain period, for > example, the last 3 years, from Transifex, > and store the export data somewhere. > But I will lost the ability to query any periods, for example, the > data from 2015.4-2015.10 will not be able to get. > > So we could discuss whether we need this ability in the meeting today. > If we don't need, Transifex is no use for us. We could delete it safely. > > Best regards > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) > > > "Ian Y. Choi" <ianyrchoi(a)gmail.com> wrote on 2015/12/17 12:21:34: > > > From: "Ian Y. Choi" <ianyrchoi(a)gmail.com> > > To: Ying Chun Guo/China/IBM@IBMCN, Andreas Jaeger <aj(a)suse.com> > > Cc: Robert Simai <robert.simai(a)suse.com>, > openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org > > Date: 2015/12/17 12:22 > > Subject: Re: [Openstack-i18n] Transifex > > > > Hello Andreas, > > > > I am copying & pasting from Andreas's comment to this thread: > > > > +++ > > "Sorry, let me clarify this again: > > * ATC is one year (voting rights for i18n) > > * Free passes for OpenStack conference is 6 months > > > > For ATC, you could take a one time snapshot as well now - going back > > to 1st of April, instead of saving it for later," > > > > > > => Thank you so much for your nice clarification on ATC status and > > summit free passes. > > > > We would vote this issue (removing on Transifex site) on today's IRC > > meeting, and yes. > > We need contribution statistics data from Transifex, and I agree that > > we can query and save Transifex statistics data (from April 1 2015 > > to now) and later > > we would merge this data with Zanata statistics data on next April. > > > > And I am not sure exactly, but we might use openstack/i18n repo to > > store Transfex related data > > into a specific branch, not a master branch. > > > > > > With many thanks, > > > > /Ian > > > > > > Ying Chun Guo wrote on 12/17/2015 1:21 AM: > > If we don't need the contribution data in Transifex, I think we > > could remove it. > > > > As to the back up, it's a personal habit. I just want to keep it as > > the history. > > I will use a repo in github to store the documents, including an > > Excel file with the contribution statistic data. > > > > Best regards > > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) > > > > > > -----Andreas Jaeger <aj(a)suse.com> wrote: ----- > > > > >To: "Ian Y. Choi" <ianyrchoi(a)gmail.com>, Robert Simai > > ><robert.simai(a)suse.com> > > >From: Andreas Jaeger <aj(a)suse.com> > > >Date: 12/16/2015 09:59PM > > >Cc: openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org > > >Subject: Re: [Openstack-i18n] Transifex > > > > > >On 2015-12-16 14:45, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > >> On 2015-12-16 14:34, Ian Y. Choi wrote: > > >>> Hello Robert, > > >>> > > >>> As far as I remember, on the last i18n irc meeting (Dec 03 2015 +6 > > >UTC), > > >>> we discussed this issue. > > >>> > > >>> During the meeting, meeting attendees found that querying to > > >Transifex > > >>> statistics data > > >>> is needed to check ATC status for the next OpenStack release, > > >Mitaka. > > >> > > >> ATC status is handed out only for people active in the current > > >release, > > >> so for the next summit in Austin, only for people that were active > > >in > > >> Mitaka time frame. And since we used Zanata for all of Mitaka, > > >there's > > >> no need to query transifex IMO. > > >> > > >> Katamo is wrong with ATC status for one year, this has changed, > > > > > >See > > >https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/45531/atc-pass-for-the-openstac > > >k-summit/ > > >with information for Tokyo summit (1st of April was cut-off-date), > > > > > >Andreas > > >-- > > > Andreas Jaeger aj(a){suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi > > > SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > > > GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, > > > HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > > > GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 > > >A126 > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Openstack-i18n mailing list > > >Openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org > > >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n > > > > > > >

5 5

How do we manage glossary?
by Akihiro Motoki 17 Dec '15

17 Dec '15

Hi team, Recently we added the glossary to the i18n repo [1]. 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 [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/i18n/tree/i18n

2 1

Re: [Openstack-i18n] Transifex
by Ian Y. Choi 16 Dec '15

16 Dec '15

Hello Andreas, I am copying & pasting from Andreas's comment to this thread: +++ "Sorry, let me clarify this again: * ATC is one year (voting rights for i18n) * Free passes for OpenStack conference is 6 months For ATC, you could take a one time snapshot as well now - going back to 1st of April, instead of saving it for later," => Thank you so much for your nice clarification on ATC status and summit free passes. We would vote this issue (removing on Transifex site) on today's IRC meeting, and yes. We need contribution statistics data from Transifex, and I agree that we can query and save Transifex statistics data (from April 1 2015 to now) and later we would merge this data with Zanata statistics data on next April. And I am not sure exactly, but we might use openstack/i18n repo to store Transfex related data into a specific branch, not a master branch. With many thanks, /Ian Ying Chun Guo wrote on 12/17/2015 1:21 AM: > If we don't need the contribution data in Transifex, I think we could > remove it. > > As to the back up, it's a personal habit. I just want to keep it as > the history. > I will use a repo in github to store the documents, including an Excel > file with the contribution statistic data. > > Best regards > Ying Chun Guo (Daisy) > > > -----Andreas Jaeger <aj(a)suse.com <mailto:aj@suse.com>> wrote: ----- > > >To: "Ian Y. Choi" <ianyrchoi(a)gmail.com <mailto:ianyrchoi@gmail.com>>, > Robert Simai > ><robert.simai(a)suse.com <mailto:robert.simai@suse.com>> > >From: Andreas Jaeger <aj(a)suse.com <mailto:aj@suse.com>> > >Date: 12/16/2015 09:59PM > >Cc: openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org > <mailto:openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org> > >Subject: Re: [Openstack-i18n] Transifex > > > >On 2015-12-16 14:45, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > >> On 2015-12-16 14:34, Ian Y. Choi wrote: > >>> Hello Robert, > >>> > >>> As far as I remember, on the last i18n irc meeting (Dec 03 2015 +6 > >UTC), > >>> we discussed this issue. > >>> > >>> During the meeting, meeting attendees found that querying to > >Transifex > >>> statistics data > >>> is needed to check ATC status for the next OpenStack release, > >Mitaka. > >> > >> ATC status is handed out only for people active in the current > >release, > >> so for the next summit in Austin, only for people that were active > >in > >> Mitaka time frame. And since we used Zanata for all of Mitaka, > >there's > >> no need to query transifex IMO. > >> > >> Katamo is wrong with ATC status for one year, this has changed, > > > >See > >https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/45531/atc-pass-for-the-openstac > >k-summit/ > >with information for Tokyo summit (1st of April was cut-off-date), > > > >Andreas > >-- > > Andreas Jaeger aj(a){suse.com <mailto:aj@%7Bsuse.com>,opensuse.org} > Twitter: jaegerandi > > SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > > GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, > > HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) > > GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 > >A126 > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Openstack-i18n mailing list > >Openstack-i18n(a)lists.openstack.org > <mailto:Openstack-i18n@lists.openstack.org> > >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-i18n > > > >

2 1

IRC meeting today
by Ying Chun Guo 16 Dec '15

16 Dec '15

Hi, team We will have IRC meeting today, at 1300UTC in #openstack-meeting. I'm going to cover following topics. * Status update: Liberty installation guide translation * Discussion: Midcycle spring/virtual spring * Vote: delete OpenStack from Transifex * Open discussions Feel free to propose other topics if you like. Best regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)

1 0

Transifex
by Ying Chun Guo 16 Dec '15

16 Dec '15

Hello, team I have handled all the team join requests to OpenStack in Transifex, sending emails to inform the tool change and then rejecting them. I noticed there was no translations happened in Transifex after Oct. I think we could start to remove Openstack projects from Transifex. We may find a place to back up firstly, and then remove. Any objections to the remove ? Any suggestions about the back up ? Best regards Ying Chun Guo (Daisy)

4 6