On Mon, Oct 24 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "John Cai via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > I almost suggested to extend the FOREACH_FSCK_MSG_ID() definition in > fsck.h so that fsck-msgids.txt gets auto-generated (what is missing > in fsck.h that prevents us from doing so is the textual explanation > you added in the new file in your patch---they could come from > comments on the same line, for example, and can be extracted via a > Perl or sed script at build time). I think this is the best eventual approach, whether we want it now is another matter... > I do not know if it is a good > idea, especially if we forsee a future in which we may be > translating the documentation, so decided against making such a > suggestion. ...I just wanted to point out that difficulty of translating such a thing should not be a reason to hold that back, because it's not hard to translate such an arrangement. We'd just point the po-doc extraction at the generated *.txt, we'd need to re-arrange the Makefile dependencies a bit, but it shouldn't be a problem. The *.pot-file generation is a step that only the translation coordinator *needs* to run, so even if it's a manual procedure, or requires first building the sources... > But at least, we could _lint_ the manually curated fsck-msgids.txt > using what is in fsck.h to see if a new MSG_ID added to fsck.h is > missing from the doc, or a MSG_ID whose default severity is updated > in fsck.h is stale in the doc, etc. That can be left for the future > updates, but we should at least instruct developers to keep them in > sync in fsck.h by adding a comment. Yeah, that's a good step.
