On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 09:30:09PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 08:53:30PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> >
> >> >> Your commit message does not make clear if you want this "fatal" to be
> >> >> grep-able (by scripts) or not. If not, please _() the string. Maybe
> >> >> this to reduce work for translators
> >> >>
> >> >> /* TRANSLATORS: this is the prefix before usage error */
> >> >> fprintf(stderr, "%s %s\n\n", _("fatal:"), msg);
> >> >
> >> > I don't think we translate any of our "fatal:", "error:", etc, do we?
> >> > It certainly doesn't look like it in usage.c.
> >>
> >> I know. But those existed before the l10n starts, some of those belong
> >> to plumbing messages. This one is new.
> >
> > We add lots of new messages which are themselves translated, and they
> > still get untranslated prefixes. It seems like consistency is more
> > important than translating this one spot. But then, I do not use a
> > translated git myself, so I would not see the difference either way.
>
> I'm kinda used to the half English half Vietnamese messages after so
> many years (not just git). I do like the prefix translated as well.
> But I guess we could leave this a is for now. At least we know the
> scope of this message and will have easier time i18n-izing it when we
> do the same for die(), warning() and friends.
Yeah. It's a big enough change that at the very least it should go into
its own patch. I don't have a strong opinion myself, except that if we
want to leave plumbing messages completely grep-able, we probably need
to distinguish between different calls to die(), etc. Which sounds kind
of nasty.
I dunno. I _thought_ nobody was supposed to be grepping stderr, even for
plumbing commands. But maybe that does not match reality.
-Peff