"Josh Soref via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Josh Soref <jsoref@xxxxxxxxx>
> Co-authored-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Soref <jsoref@xxxxxxxxx>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I am not sure why this is Co-au, and not the more usual "Helped-by".
If you look at the thread, you'll see that the code in question was
written by Eric [1]. The only change from it was the addition of
`void` to the function prototype by me.
That said, it's my first foray into patches for git. I didn't use
helped-by because gitgitgadget didn't tell me to [2].
I have no opinion on the details. At this point, it's likely that a
second commit would include a helped-by referencing you. Maybe. I'm
not sure of the semantics of helped-by [2].
Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Actually, not so fast. The end-users do not care really where the
> message originates.
>
> $ git grep -e 'Already up[- ]to' \*.c
> maint:builtin/merge.c: finish_up_to_date(_("Already up to date."));
> maint:builtin/merge.c: finish_up_to_date(_("Already up to date. Yeeah!"));
> maint:merge-ort-wrappers.c: printf(_("Already up to date!"));
> maint:merge-recursive.c: output(opt, 0, _("Already up to date!"));
> maint:notes-merge.c: printf("Already up to date!\n");
>
> It probably makes sense to replace the exclamation point with a full
> stop for others, no?
Maybe. I'm not sure what they mean.
I'm fully capable of wearing a grammar / UX hat and rewriting the
entire UX for a project if you invite me to do so.
I generally try not to do that when I initially approach a project, I
prefer to get more comfortable w/ it and let it get more comfortable
w/ me before I make significant change proposals.
(As an aside, I did start looking into what these messages meant /
what to change them to, but other things have come up, and I've
decided that I should at least respond to this message instead of just
appearing to disappear.)
> Also, I didn't notice when reading the patch submission earlier, but
> what does
>
> >> (All localizations of the previous strings are broken.)
>
> mean, exactly? Do you mean to say
>
> Because this changes some messages, the old messages that were
> already translated will no longer be used, and these new
> messages need to be translated anew.
Yes, this is what I meant. It's probably technically obvious to some
people, but since I'm invited to describe the effects of my change, it
seemed worth noting. Anyone cutting a release with this commit but not
updating the translations would be bleeding en-US into the
translations where before they would have had translated content.
(Whether that translated content was any good given the fact that it
was pasted together is a different story, but...)
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAPig+cT=xeLn9KNHz7hiNWo0QTfc1zZ1X-czJ4n503RRhBA0XQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
[2] https://github.com/gitgitgadget/gitgitgadget/issues/543
