Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Localise error headers

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 21, 2017, 14:20 UTC
Message-ID: <20170121142048.ygbwc65un4whhtwn@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1sw9piz5.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:08:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > Yes, I would think die_errno() is a no-brainer for translation, since
> > the strerror() will be translated.
> >
> >>     apply.c:                die(_("internal error"));
> >> 
> >> That is funny, too. I think we should substitute that with
> >> 
> >>     die("BUG: untranslated, but what went wrong instead")
> >
> > Yep. We did not consistently use "BUG:" in the early days. I would say
> > that "BUG" lines do not need to be translated. The point is that nobody
> > should ever see them, so it seems like there is little point in giving
> > extra work to translators.
> 
> In addition, "BUG: " is relatively recent introduction to our
> codebase.  Perhaps having a separate BUG(<string>) function help the
> distinction further?

Yes, I think so. I have often been tempted to dump core on BUGs for further analysis. You can do that by string-matching "BUG:" from the beginning of a die message, but it's kind of gross. :)

-Peff