Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] l10n: Add git-add.txt to localized man pages

From: Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu>
Date: Mar 24, 2017, 14:21 UTC
Message-ID: <29db2bb2-e244-6848-32fd-9ea5434c55e9@grubix.eu>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZUAQ1sR0d0=KtkbWprO9VmpHO2SFFW7AYMS=wwaKjLtw@mail.gmail.com>

Stefan Beller venit, vidit, dixit 22.03.2017 19:59:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> So we'd want to be able to say:
>>>   "get a tarball including all submodules except the superproject"
>>>   (This would produce the "optional language pack tarball")
>>
>> You do not need that.  Just go to the gitman-l10n project and grab a
>> tarball out of it.
> 
> Oh, I misunderstood your proposal.
> You said: We have *one* submodule for all languages, but I understood
> we'd have a submodule for *each* language.

In general, submodules would remove the major gripe that I have with the current organization, that is carrying out-of-date translations in tree. submodules make it clear that git.git refers to a specific revision of the translations.

Now, since not even git.pot is insync with the l10n mark-up in the code base, I'm afraid everything in po qualifies for being externalized. Junio's current "pull l10n" would be substituted by updating the l10n submodule version that git.git references.

In turn, the l10n coordinator may want to update submodule versions for each language rather than pulling updates. That would allow the space savings for the common uni- or bilingual developper that we are after. Recursive submodules, yeah ;)

I'm unsure whether we should/can treat translations of git and the man pages the same. I tend to say yes (being unsure about the consequences), as I would hope that translators would be the same so that we keep consistency across several tranlations in one language.

Michael