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.ku...@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.ku...@gmail.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Hellmann [mailto:d...@doughellmann.com] > Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 9:39 AM > To: openstack-operators <openstack-operators@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@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-operators mailing list > OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
