On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s.dev@xxxxxx> writes: > > >> > - make some consistency changes > >> > * s/diff/différences/ > >> > * s/patch/correctif/ everywhere > > > > I disagree here. Words like "diff", "commit", "patch", etc should be > > kept as is. Translation of those terms make things harder for the users. > > Metoo. > > One day or another, the user will have to face the words "diff", > "commit" and "patch" even in a 100% french-speaking context (for > example when requesting help and someone answering "open a terminal > and type 'git commit --whatever'" or so). > > Matching the command-line concepts and the GUI concepts is made really > hard by over-translating. Striking a good balance is the key. Not translating enough might simply look "cheap" to a new user who was not exposed to the concepts in the first place. It is not like if we were facing issues like: "Made in Turkey" -> "Fait en dinde" "arm rest and pad assembly" -> "armer le repos et rembourer l'assemblée" It's like those stu**d people who decided that "email" was too hard to translate. So they declared that "email" was "imél" in French. Fortunately some non European people came up with a refreshing idea and translated "email" into "courriel" instead. And with a step back, you must admit that "courriel" is so much clearer and more descriptive semantically. Therefore I think that it is a good thing to _try_ to translate stuff appropriately. but this is often much harder than it may seem. > (and BTW, "correctif" is not a very good translation of "patch", since > a patch is not necessarilly a correction of something). In this case I think "retouche" would be a better choice. Nicolas