>> I think that using something like po would be better. There are tools
>> that can extract and update the template messages from many differente
>> sources. Adapting them to produce a template file from gittutorial.txt
>> would allow translators to verify how stale their translations are and
>> much smoother merges. How about that?
>
> After thinking about it a bit more, I think I would prefer something that
> keeps translation sources separate from the original text. That way, I
> have a lot less chance of having to deal with merge/patch conflicts.
>
> Your patch adds Documentation/pt/ hierarchy, but I noticed that the kernel
> folks seem to use Documentation/{ja_JP,ko_KR,zh_CN}/. I do not think it
> would make much difference for Japanese language between ja vs ja_JP, but
> for many languages used in different geographic areas, such an arrangement
> would make a lot more sense. As your patch identified itself as a
> translation to "Brasilian Portuguese", I am imagining that it would be
> sufficiently different to merit the distinction from Old-world Portuguese.
> Perhaps your patch should be made to Documentation/pt_BR instead?
>
> As to the choice of the tool, from a quick superficial glance, po4a could
> be a reasonable choice, but I do not know how mature and/or widely used it
> is, or if there are better alternatives. http://po4a.alioth.debian.org/
> says it does support AsciiDoc.
git gui uses 'po' at http://repo.or.cz/w/git-gui/git-gui-i18n.git to
handle all translations, including Brazilian Portuguese.
In the meantime, I've made some translation improvements over Thadeu's
translation work, fixing some typos overall. I'll send it as a
separate patch.
@Thadeu: would you please double check it and perhaps add your Acked-by?
Thanks,
Andre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html