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