Open Stack

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