From: Vasco Almeida <vascomalmeida@sapo.pt>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:16:03 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] i18n: notes: mark comment for translation
Message-ID: <1469535363.1845.8.camel@sapo.pt>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqr3ah621l.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

A Seg, 25-07-2016 às 10:49 -0700, Junio C Hamano escreveu:
> Vasco Almeida <vascomalmeida@sapo.pt> writes:
> 
> > 
> >  static const char note_template[] =
> > -	"\nWrite/edit the notes for the following object:\n";
> > +	N_("Write/edit the notes for the following object:");
> >  
> >  struct note_data {
> >  	int given;
> > @@ -179,7 +179,8 @@ static void prepare_note_data(const unsigned
> > char *object, struct note_data *d,
> >  			copy_obj_to_fd(fd, old_note);
> >  
> >  		strbuf_addch(&buf, '\n');
> > -		strbuf_add_commented_lines(&buf, note_template,
> > strlen(note_template));
> > +		strbuf_addch(&buf, '\n');
> > +		strbuf_add_commented_lines(&buf, _(note_template),
> > strlen(_(note_template)));
> 
> I do not quite understand why you want the blank lines surrounding
> the message outside add_commented_lines() call.  I think the intent
> is to produce
> 
>     #
>     # Write/edit the notes for the following object:
>     #

If this is what we want, I will send a re-roll accordingly.

> with the single call.  If you pushed the newlines outside the
> message, wouldn't you end up having this instead (____ denoting an
> extra empty line each before and after the message)?
> 
>     ____
>     # Write/edit the notes for the following object:
>     ____
> 
Yes, this was my intention. The original does:

    #
    # Write/edit the notes for the following object:
    ____