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 __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev