Open Stack

Hi,

>> Possible options to handle that:
>>
>> 1)      Duplicate messages:
>>
>> LOG.error(“<error message>”, {<key>: <val>})
>>
>> raise Exception(_(“<error message>”) % {<key>: <val>})
>>
>> 2)      Ignore this error
>>
>> 3)      Talk to hacking people about possible upgrade of this check
>>
>> 4)      Pass translated text to LOG in such cases
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d personally vote for 2. What are your thoughts?
>
> When the translators go to translate, they generally only get to see
> what's inside _(), so #2 is a no-go for translations, and #3 also is a
> no-go.

+1

Just throwing and idea here: Is not translating anything an option ?

Personally I don't see much benefits in translating a software like
Ironic, there are many "user facing" parts that will remain in
english, e.g: The resource attributes name, node's states (powered
off, powered on, deploying, deploy wait...), etc... So why bother ? I
think it's fair to assume that people using Ironic directly (not via
horizon for example) understands english. It's a lot of overhead to
get it translated and there are very few people working on it for
Ironic (right now, Ironic is 2.74% translated [0]). IMHO just the
costs of having duplicated strings all over in the code overweight the
benefits.

I did some translation of Ironic to Brazilian Portuguese in the past
myself and it's really tough to keep up the pace, strings are added or
changed very rapidly.

So again, is:  "5) Not translate anything" an option here ?

[0] https://translate.openstack.org/iteration/view/ironic/master?dswid=9016

Cheers,
Lucas