From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:35:00 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Translate the tutorial to Brazillian Portuguese. Message-ID: <7vtz1yc2i3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20090629162738.GE4327@vespa.holoscopio.com> Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo writes: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 09:08:00AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo writes: >> >> > Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo >> >> Thanks. >> >> > +Você também pode dar ao 'git-log' um "intervalo" de commits onde o >> > +primeiro não é necessariamente um ancestral do segundo; por exemplo, se >> > +as pontas dos ramos "stable" e "master" divergiram de um commit >> > +comum algum tempo atrás, então >> > + >> > +------------------------------------- >> > +$ git log stable..experimental >> > +------------------------------------- >> > + >> > +irá listas os commits feitos no ramo experimental mas não no ramo >> > +stable, enquanto >> > + >> > +------------------------------------- >> > +$ git log experimental..stable >> > +------------------------------------- >> > + >> > +irá listar a lista de commits feitos no ramo stable mas não no ramo >> > +experimental. >> > + >> >> I think you would want to update this part to match what you did in your >> [PATCH 1/2 v2]. > > Well remembered. Thanks. As I do not speak the language, even though I can guess that a straight replacement "s/experimental/master/g" would be enough for the above quoted part (including the body text), I do not feel comfortable enough to update these myself. Please send in a replacement [PATCH 2/2 v2]. >> I however am not sure how practical it would be to force people to look at >> the *.txt version of document, only 1/n lines of which is now readable by >> him (if you are like a typical American who understands only English ;-). >> >> Thoughts? > > I think that using something like po would be better. There are tools > that can extract and update the template messages from many differente > sources. Adapting them to produce a template file from gittutorial.txt > would allow translators to verify how stale their translations are and > much smoother merges. How about that? After thinking about it a bit more, I think I would prefer something that keeps translation sources separate from the original text. That way, I have a lot less chance of having to deal with merge/patch conflicts. Your patch adds Documentation/pt/ hierarchy, but I noticed that the kernel folks seem to use Documentation/{ja_JP,ko_KR,zh_CN}/. I do not think it would make much difference for Japanese language between ja vs ja_JP, but for many languages used in different geographic areas, such an arrangement would make a lot more sense. As your patch identified itself as a translation to "Brasilian Portuguese", I am imagining that it would be sufficiently different to merit the distinction from Old-world Portuguese. Perhaps your patch should be made to Documentation/pt_BR instead? As to the choice of the tool, from a quick superficial glance, po4a could be a reasonable choice, but I do not know how mature and/or widely used it is, or if there are better alternatives. http://po4a.alioth.debian.org/ says it does support AsciiDoc.