Re: Has anyone looked at Gettext support for Git itself?
- From
Will Palmer <wmpalmer@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 17, 2010, 18:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <1274122619.4780.36.camel@dreddbeard>
- In-Reply-To
- <20100517175939.GA3575@efreet.light.src>
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 19:59 +0200, Jan Hudec wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 17:12:22 +0200, Thomas Rast wrote: > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 14:32, Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch> wrote: > > > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > There are cases though, where somebody calls *porcelain* commands in their > scripts and there they occasionally may need this LC_ALL=C thing. I suppose > having a global option to turn off localization might be useful for such > users.
Would it be that bad to define something like GIT_PLUMBING=1 to mean "I am using this as plumbing"? It seems that this is the way things are headed with --porcelain, even if the name is backwards.
I agree that error messages should be localised either way- if you're trying to parse an error message, something's always gone wrong.
Does anyone know how large of a non-english-speaking community git currently has? Would this effort include adding localised git command names or arguments?
It may also be worth mentioning that a git "commit", for example, doesn't have anything (other than historical reasons) to do with the English word "commit". A git commit is a git commit, and perhaps such conceptual terms should best be left untranslated anyway. It would certainly make it easier to answer questions in #git if people continued to use the same terms everywhere. Just as a weak anecdotal argument, when someone uses the term "revision" in #git, there's generally a lack of understanding about what a "commit" is. "commit" means something very specific in git, and I would hesitate to try to translate that into another language as if it's just a synonym for "revision" or "checkpoint", or "transaction", etc
-- -- Will