On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:53 PM Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 07/22, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:33 AM Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +static void receive_wanted_refs(struct packet_reader *reader, struct ref *refs)
> > > +{
> > > + process_section_header(reader, "wanted-refs", 0);
> > > + while (packet_reader_read(reader) == PACKET_READ_NORMAL) {
> > > + struct object_id oid;
> > > + const char *end;
> > > + struct ref *r = NULL;
> > > +
> > > + if (parse_oid_hex(reader->line, &oid, &end) || *end++ != ' ')
> > > + die("expected wanted-ref, got '%s'", reader->line);
> >
> > Could you do a follow and wrap all these strings in _() since this one
> > is already in 'next'?
>
> What criteria is used to determine if something should be translated?
> To me, this looks like a wire-protocol error which would benefit from
> not being translated because it would be easier to grep for if it
> occurs. That and if a user sees this sort of error I don't think that
> they could really do anything about it anyway.
Devs are users too and for me, even if I can read English just fine, I
prefer fully translated interface, not a mix of non-English and
English. Users can still google around and find out about wanted-ref
(at least linux users 10 years ago did). If they show up here asking
for support, we can ask them to translate back if needed (or look into
.po files). We have the same problem anyway if their bug reports
contain other non-English strings.
Besides drawing the line "benefit from (not) being translated" varies
from one developer to another. I think it's just easier and more
consistent to stick to "if it's not machine-readable (or really meant
for devs, like BUG()), translate it" and leave it to translators to
decide.
--
Duy
