On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > - die("SHA-1 appears to be part of a collision attack: %s",
> > > + die(_("SHA-1 appears to be part of a collision attack: %s"),
> > > hash_to_hex_algop(hash, &hash_algos[GIT_HASH_SHA1]));
> >
> > I didn't find any list discussion, but I think I may have actually left
> > this untranslated intentionally. Like a BUG(), we'd expect it to come up
> > basically never. And when it does, being able to search for the exact
> > wording online may be more important than providing a translated
> > version.
>
> I disagree with that reasoning. By that rationale, any message we deem to
> be somewhat rare should be _untranslated_.
>
> A much better rule, at least from my perspective is: is the target
> audience the Git users? If so, the message is to be translated. If not,
> then not.
That's what I was getting at. The audience is really Git developers,
just like it would be for a BUG(). We don't expect either of those
things to happen.
> In this instance, it is quite obviously targeting the Git users who need
> to understand why the command they tried to run was failing. The test in
> t0013 is totally agreeing with this:
>
> test_expect_success 'test-sha1 detects shattered pdf' '
> test_must_fail test-tool sha1 <"$TEST_DATA/shattered-1.pdf" 2>err &&
> test_i18ngrep collision err &&
> grep 38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a err
> '
>
> Notice that `test_i18ngrep`? It tells me that we expect this message to be
> translated.
Well, I wrote both that line and the untranslated original code, so I'm
not sure what we can deduce from that. ;)
But yeah, I am not strongly opposed to translating this. I brought it up
more in the line of "I don't think it's that big a deal that it was not
translated".
-Peff
