On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 16:09, Jan Krüger <jk@xxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> thanks for your comments so far. I pretty much agree with all of your
> thoughts, so below I'm going to focus on those where I have something
> to say in addition to that.
>
>> > +#, c-format
>> > +msgid "nothing added to commit but untracked files present%s\n"
>> > +msgstr "keine Änderungen für den Commit vorgemerkt, aber
>> > unberücksichtigte Dateien vorhanden\n"
>>
>> Loses the %s (which is used for advice).
>
> That's me being careless. I will add an additional check to my workflow
> to prevent format string bugs from happening again.
As noted on IRC this would also be flagged by a compile error if we
were using `msgfmt --check` in the Makefile:
- $(QUIET_MSGFMT)$(MSGFMT) -o $@ $<
+ $(QUIET_MSGFMT)$(MSGFMT) --check -o $@ $<
I'll add that along with some other planned fixes after Junio pulls
the outstanding stuff we have queued up.
It'll break compatibility with Solaris gettext. There are ways to work
around that, but I think we should just drop support for it
anyway. GNU gettext is needed anyway if we want libintl-perl and some
of the fancier gettext features.
Solaris support was always something I was using for an extra sanity
check, not something I planned to support, and the extra effort of
doing so isn't worth the effort I think.
>> [way earlier, and same goes for "by us" -> "hier" [lit. "here"]]
>> > +msgid "deleted by them:"
>> > +msgstr "dort gelöscht:"
>> [lit. "deleted there"]
>> > +
>> [...]
>> > +#, c-format
>> > +msgid "behind %d] "
>> > +msgstr "nur dort %d] "
>> [lit. "only there"]
>>
>> This had me pause for a moment. The concepts of "[merge side] theirs"
>> and "behind" are quite different; is it a good idea to translate these
>> to the same?
>>
>> Especially so since later on you translate
>>
>> > +#, c-format
>> > +msgid "path '%s' does not have our version"
>> > +msgstr "Pfad '%s' hat keine Version 'von uns' im Index"
>> [lit. "... 'of us' ..."]
>>
>> I do agree that the best I can come up with, "von den anderen
>> gelöscht", would be quite awkward.
>
> This was one of the more difficult things to decide on while
> translating. Both are difficult to translate into something that
> "flows", and individually I think both work okay the way I decided to
> translate them (but see the next paragraph), but of course it would be
> preferrable to distinguish the two different concepts better. I'll be
> grateful for any suggestions.
>
> The real problem, I think, is that "ours" and "theirs" are misnomers in
> the original terminology. A good translation, I think, will not try
> to translate them literally... that would get us from misnomers to
> misnomers that also don't lend themselves well to the target
> language. :) The question, then, is how to rephrase the messages
> elegantly without removing them all too far from the original idea.
>
> This would be easier if "ours" and "theirs" always referred to the same
> concept... but they mean different things for merge vs. rebase, for
> instance.
Let's keep in mind that one of the major benefits of the gettext
series is that it's bringing focus to issues like this. Ideally we'd
like to fix those issues in the English originals, not just route
around the damage.
(I don't know if theirs/ours is such a case, but generally speaking..)
--
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