{"thread":{"id":"66614","subject":"[Outreachy] Microproject: use Q_() in builtin/checkout.c","startedAt":"2026-10-21T04:18:25Z","lastAt":"2026-10-22T03:44:33Z","messageCount":5,"participants":["Muritala Mudi","kerylefondji7@gmail.com","Tuomas Ahola","Tanga Joris"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"555649","messageId":"CAO=0-S64w=n47n6yfYoKJie2aFi+T88Sp_qPmFe2RW0xWEwcdQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"66614","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[Outreachy] Microproject: use Q_() in builtin/checkout.c","fromName":"Muritala Mudi","fromEmail":"ibnmuhyideen95@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-10-21T04:18:25Z","receivedAt":"2026-10-21T04:18:25Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ibnmuhyideen95@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Hi Usman, Christian and Siddharth,\n\nThank you Usman for the welcome. I took some time to look into the\nmicroproject I want to work\non and one that got my interest is the Q_() pluralization\nmicroproject. I will like to work on builtin/checkout.c.\nI searched the list archive and I didn't see anyone working on this file yet.\n\nI noticed two places that can get improved with Q_():\n\nLine 1088, \" ... and %d more.\\n\": this is at the end of the warning\nGit shows when someone leaves\na detached HEAD and so commits might be left behind.\nGit lists up to four commits and then shows this line for the rest.\n\nLine 1492, \"only one reference expected, %d given.\": this appears when\nmore than one\nreference is given before --, e.g. git checkout a b --.\nIn both cases the number is always 2 or more, so in English the plural\nis always shown.\nBut for languages like Polish, which have different plural forms for\n2-4 and for 5 and above,\nit will be inconsistent to use the same form for all cases.\n\nIn po/pl.po, the first message currently has only one translation slot.\nSo using Q_() can let have proper translation.\n\nI noticed that line 1405 in builtin/checkout.c has the same issue.\nThe same message also appears in builtin/worktree.c at lines 812 and 951.\n\nSo I have two questions:\n\n1. Is it OK to convert these messages to Q_(), even though English\nwill always show the plural?\n2. Should I also include line 1405 in the patch, which will mean\nchanging the same message in builtin/worktree.c\nas well, or should I keep the patch just limited to the first two\nmessages for now\n\nRegards,\nMudi\n\n"},{"id":"555702","messageId":"20261021090408.835-1-kerylefondji7@gmail.com","threadId":"66614","inReplyTo":"CAO=0-S64w=n47n6yfYoKJie2aFi+T88Sp_qPmFe2RW0xWEwcdQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [Outreachy] Microproject: use Q_() in builtin/checkout.c","fromName":"","fromEmail":"kerylefondji7@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-10-21T09:04:08Z","receivedAt":"2026-10-21T09:04:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kerylefondji7@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Hi Mudi,\n\nWelcome to the Git community!\n\nIt's great that you are taking the time to ask these questions on\nthe list first before preparing your patch. As a fellow newcomer\nworking on a microproject, I found that discussing things before\ncoding saves a lot of time!\n\nRegarding your questions based on what I've learned so far:\n\nAbout Q_(): Yes, converting to Q_() is good practice for\ninternationalization. Even if the English text seems to focus on\nplural, other languages have different plural rules, so using Q_()\ngives translators the right structure.\n\nAbout keeping the scope small: As a beginner, keeping the patch\nsimple and limited (like starting with builtin/checkout.c) makes it\nmuch easier to review and test without getting mixed up in multiple\nfiles at once.\n\nAlso, Junio C. Hamano recently shared an update about how we should\napproach review discussions before sending new versions (v2, etc.)\nin MyFirstContribution. You might find it very useful for your workflow:\n\nhttps://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqa4o94e0r.fsf@gitster.g/\n\nGood luck with your contribution!\n\nBest regards,\n\nKeryle\n\n"},{"id":"555714","messageId":"20261021110616.Wxkhc%taahol@utu.fi","threadId":"66614","inReplyTo":"CAO=0-S64w=n47n6yfYoKJie2aFi+T88Sp_qPmFe2RW0xWEwcdQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [Outreachy] Microproject: use Q_() in builtin/checkout.c","fromName":"Tuomas Ahola","fromEmail":"taahol@utu.fi","sentAt":"2026-10-21T11:06:16Z","receivedAt":"2026-10-21T11:06:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"taahol@utu.fi","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/114303477?v=4"},"body":"Muritala Mudi wrote:\n\n> Hi Usman, Christian and Siddharth,\n> \n> Thank you Usman for the welcome. I took some time to look into the\n> microproject I want to work\n> on and one that got my interest is the Q_() pluralization\n> microproject. I will like to work on builtin/checkout.c.\n> I searched the list archive and I didn't see anyone working on this file yet.\n> \n> I noticed two places that can get improved with Q_():\n> \n> Line 1088, \" ... and %d more.\\n\": this is at the end of the warning\n> Git shows when someone leaves\n> a detached HEAD and so commits might be left behind.\n> Git lists up to four commits and then shows this line for the rest.\n> \n> Line 1492, \"only one reference expected, %d given.\": this appears when\n> more than one\n> reference is given before --, e.g. git checkout a b --.\n> In both cases the number is always 2 or more, so in English the plural\n> is always shown.\n> But for languages like Polish, which have different plural forms for\n> 2-4 and for 5 and above,\n> it will be inconsistent to use the same form for all cases.\n> \n> In po/pl.po, the first message currently has only one translation slot.\n> So using Q_() can let have proper translation.\n> \n> I noticed that line 1405 in builtin/checkout.c has the same issue.\n> The same message also appears in builtin/worktree.c at lines 812 and 951.\n> \n> So I have two questions:\n> \n> 1. Is it OK to convert these messages to Q_(), even though English\n> will always show the plural?\n\nYes, that would be very helpful.\n\n> 2. Should I also include line 1405 in the patch, which will mean\n> changing the same message in builtin/worktree.c\n> as well, or should I keep the patch just limited to the first two\n> messages for now\n\nYou can reply to [1], giving a review on the patch. Perhaps you could even\nnudge the author to take care of line 1492, too, whilst you can write and\nsubmit patches for the other cases you had found.\n\nThat would be a nice exercise about how to coordinate contributions, wouldn't\nit?\n\nThanks and welcome to Git!\n\nLinks:\n 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20261021022156.119947-1-tangajoris@gmail.com/\n\n"},{"id":"555786","messageId":"CAKrRMNrrsa2iwb-0D=FfzNAwyLTJtLbVEN69vu7sBRWOKheZ_A@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"66614","inReplyTo":"20261021110616.Wxkhc%taahol@utu.fi","subject":"Re: [Outreachy] Microproject: use Q_() in builtin/checkout.c","fromName":"Tanga Joris","fromEmail":"tangajoris@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-10-21T20:32:54Z","receivedAt":"2026-10-21T20:32:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"tangajoris@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 at 14:13, Tuomas Ahola wrote:\n> You can reply to [1], giving a review on the patch. Perhaps you could even\n> nudge the author to take care of line 1492, too, whilst you can write and\n> submit patches for the other cases you had found.\n\nTuomas, thank you for pointing to my patch. I'd be happy to take\ncare of line 1492 in v2 of my patch. Mudi, as Tuomas suggested,\nline 1405 and the similar messages in builtin/worktree.c are yours,\nand reviews of my patch are welcome:)\n\nThanks,\nTanga\n\n"},{"id":"555814","messageId":"CAO=0-S7fQgHUYreK48rMkkpHaZXc9OXVmZTm36Ux+wo01Hw=oQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"66614","inReplyTo":"CAKrRMNrrsa2iwb-0D=FfzNAwyLTJtLbVEN69vu7sBRWOKheZ_A@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [Outreachy] Microproject: use Q_() in builtin/checkout.c","fromName":"Muritala Mudi","fromEmail":"ibnmuhyideen95@gmail.com","sentAt":"2026-10-22T03:44:33Z","receivedAt":"2026-10-22T03:44:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ibnmuhyideen95@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Wed, Oct 21, 2026 at 9:33 PM Tanga Joris wrote:\n> Mudi, as Tuomas suggested,\n> line 1405 and the similar messages in builtin/worktree.c are yours,\n> and reviews of my patch are welcome:)\n\nThank you Tuomas for pointing me to Tanga's patch, and thank you\nTanga. I will convert the \"matched multiple (%d) remote tracking\nbranches\" message at line 1405 in builtin/checkout.c, and the two\ncopies in builtin/worktree.c.\n\nI have also seen v2. I will reply to it and send my patch soon.\n\nThanks,\nMudi\n\n"}]}