Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] i18n for git-am, git-rebase and git-merge

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 23, 2012, 04:36 UTC
Message-ID: <7v4nozozz0.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CANYiYbFvk60NxfOTxq-xS8vt5t9xW8HLQrE_GuHGkC+u6vWfsw@mail.gmail.com>

Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> 2012/7/23 Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
>> I do not understand why many of these have Stefano's S-o-b in them.
>> If you are relaying what Stefano originally wrote, then the author
>> (i.e. "From: ") and the first S-o-b would say Stefano, and your
>> S-o-b will follow it, but that is probably not the case.
>> I'll drop the S-o-b lines for now.
>
> It is because Stefano offers lots of help for correcting syntax errors
> and misspellings in the original commit logs. Should I use Reviewed-by
> tag instead of S-o-b?

Yeah, I guessed that you meant reviewed-by.

> And in PATCH 3/7, there is a Ævar's S-o-b, it is because the workaround
> comes from Ævar's idea.

This one I remember the previous round, so didn't have any problem.

>> By the way, is there any existing test that needs to gain GETTEXT_POISON
>> or test_i18ncmp with this change?
>
> I find one test case failed, and correct it in PATCH 3/7.

That test used i18ncmp already, so the update to expected string would be sufficient. I was worried if there were existing tests that have been expecting that the output from am/rebase/merge would not be i18n'ised and using "test_cmp expect actual" to compare their output with expected result.