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

From: Michael J Gruber <git@grubix.eu>
Date: Mar 30, 2017, 15:18 UTC
Message-ID: <76f61fea-3d24-ec55-0cbc-64ee3d030dcf@grubix.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20170121142048.ygbwc65un4whhtwn@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 21.01.2017 15:20:

Show 27 quoted lines

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

I read back the whole thread, and I'm still not sure if there's consensus and how to go forward. Should we let the topic die? I don't care too much personally, I just thought the mixed tranlations look "unprofessional".

Michael