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-i18n@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-request@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-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev