Jean-Noël Avila <jn.avila@xxxxxxx> writes: > Le 13/03/2017 à 01:01, Junio C Hamano a écrit : >> +#. type: Plain text >>> +#: git-add.txt:15 >>> +#, no-wrap >>> +msgid "" >>> +"'git add' [--verbose | -v] [--dry-run | -n] [--force | -f] [--interactive | -i] [--patch | -p]\n" >>> +"\t [--edit | -e] [--[no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--update | -u]]\n" >>> +"\t [--intent-to-add | -N] [--refresh] [--ignore-errors] [--ignore-missing]\n" >>> +"\t [--chmod=(+|-)x] [--] [<pathspec>...]\n" >>> +msgstr "" >>> +"'git add' [-n] [-v] [--force | -f] [--interactive | -i] [--patch | -p]\n" >>> +"\t [--edit | -e] [--[no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--update | -u]]\n" >>> +"\t [--intent-to-add | -N] [--refresh] [--ignore-errors] [--ignore-missing]\n" >>> +"\t [--] [<chemin>...]\n" >> This shows that even after adding just _one_ new option to the >> ... A mere single >> rephrasing of a word in a large paragraph would have to result in >> the entire paragraph to be translated again? > > I'm not sure to clearly understand your point: if there is the > introduction of a new option, there is a need to update the translation > for sure. You probably are used to po4a well enough to accept "the smallest unit of translation is paragraph" as a natural given, and it may be an acceptable way to work for those who actually do the translation. Because I am not used to po4a and I don't do translation, "why I have to update the above translation of the whole paragraph, in response to a patch to rename just a single option", e.g. - [--edit | -e] [--no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--update | -u]] + [--edit | -e] [--no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--modify | -m]] was a natural reaction for me. In any case, I won't be doing the translations, and those who work with po4a are happy with the tool, that is fine by me.