Open Stack

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 at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev