Open Stack

I think a searchable code is handy. My workflow is to try to read the log messages and follow the flow of what I think should be happening. If I can't resolve the issue after a significant effort, I search  to see if there is a bug or someone else hit the same error, maybe due to misconfiguration. That usually gives me a small pile of similar things to sift through. If there were less sifting, that would be great :)

I only speak English, so I'm not a good candidate to provide feedback on translated messages.

-Chris

> On Mar 10, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Amrith Kumar <amrith.kumar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Doug,
> 
> I had a conversation with someone from the i18n team in Atlanta at the PTG,
> and later with a couple of operators (from a non-english speaking country).
> I was surprised to hear that both the operators were in favor of doing away
> with log message translation. Thinking about it some more, I believe that
> the rationale may come from the fact that in years past (long ago, when
> people had tape drives and green screens) people actually read messages and
> then tried to understand what they did to figure out what the corrective
> action needed to be. And the messages needed to be sufficiently informative
> to direct people to the possible remedial actions.
> 
> Today the workflow is to copy the message and plonk it into google and let
> search do its thing.
> 
> Given this, log message translation fragments the solution space because
> nothing out there consolidates the reports of problems with error messages
> and converts the non-english messages back to some common language for
> search.
> 
> I'm not an operator, but I'd love to hear from operators whether this
> workflow is in fact the one we should be planning for because it has
> implications that go beyond translation. First, should we make messages
> uniquely searchable, such that a search result set uniquely relates to a
> specific problem. Conversely, if we go the route of message translation in
> the future should all messages include some searchable code (like Microsoft
> does with their crash codes).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -amrith 
> 
> --
> Amrith Kumar
> amrith.kumar at gmail.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Hellmann [mailto:doug at doughellmann.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:39 AM
> To: openstack-operators <openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: [Openstack-operators] need input on log translations
> 
> There is a discussion on the -dev mailing list about the i18n team decision
> to stop translating log messages [1]. The policy change means that we may be
> able to clean up quite a lot of "clutter" throughout the service code,
> because without anyone actually translating the messages there is no need
> for the markup code used to tag those strings.
> 
> If we do remove the markup from log messages, we will be effectively
> removing "multilingual logs" as a feature. Given the amount of work and code
> churn involved in the first roll out, I would not expect us to restore that
> feature later.
> 
> Therefore, before we take what would almost certainly be an irreversible
> action, we would like some input about whether log message translations are
> useful to anyone. Please let us know if you or your customers use them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Doug
> 
> [1]
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-March/113365.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators