[zh-cn]sync api-extension/_index.md resource-quotas.md

[my-git9]

• Sync docs:
  • content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/api-extension/_index.md
  • content/zh-cn/docs/concepts/policy/resource-quotas.md
• Regarding the translation of namespaces in this article, there are more than 50 translations of "命名空间" and more than 10 translations of "名字空间". To avoid misunderstandings, they have been adjusted to "命名空间".

[netlify]

✅ Pull request preview available for checking

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	7d9eee6
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/kubernetes-io-main-staging/deploys/6646b63786c14f0008598ea7
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-46373--kubernetes-io-main-staging.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[tengqm]

Regarding the translation of namespaces in this article, there are more than 50 translations of "命名空间" and more than 10 translations of "名字空间". To avoid misunderstandings, they have been adjusted to "命名空间".

We have had this discussion before, several times. We had agreed to keep both translations as is. We agreed to be neutral at this, which means no preference. The two translations are both acceptable. There is no confusion or misunderstanding. I don't think unifying this is needed. Instead, I'm worrying that we may provoke another round of unnecessary conflicts.

[my-git9]

We have had this discussion before, several times. We had agreed to keep both translations as is. We agreed to be neutral at this, which means no preference. The two translations are both acceptable. There is no confusion or misunderstanding. I don't think unifying this is needed. Instead, I'm worrying that we may provoke another round of unnecessary conflicts.

Yes, I'm aware of this situation. But wouldn’t it be better to guarantee one translation result for the same word in the same article?

[tengqm]

We have had this discussion before, several times. We had agreed to keep both translations as is. We agreed to be neutral at this, which means no preference. The two translations are both acceptable. There is no confusion or misunderstanding. I don't think unifying this is needed. Instead, I'm worrying that we may provoke another round of unnecessary conflicts.

Yes, I'm aware of this situation. But wouldn’t it be better to guarantee one translation result for the same word in the same article?

For consistency's sake, using the same translation in one page is okay. What I'm concerned is that this kind of changes may trigger another initiative to do a site-wide change.

[my-git9]

We have had this discussion before, several times. We had agreed to keep both translations as is. We agreed to be neutral at this, which means no preference. The two translations are both acceptable. There is no confusion or misunderstanding. I don't think unifying this is needed. Instead, I'm worrying that we may provoke another round of unnecessary conflicts.

Yes, I'm aware of this situation. But wouldn’t it be better to guarantee one translation result for the same word in the same article?

For consistency's sake, using the same translation in one page is okay. What I'm concerned is that this kind of changes may trigger another initiative to do a site-wide change.

Modifications related to namespace have been restored

[tengqm]

/lgtm

[k8s-ci-robot]

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: c5aa00673ec18ce69ae19c012418e57e3e13bdcc

[ydFu]

/approve

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ydFu

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• content/zh-cn/OWNERS [ydFu]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment