Re: [PATCH 000/160] [PULL] Update ab/i18n (again)

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 21, 2010, 08:47 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTikr4=K1e2VFU4WkawjpvCp0MvqGk-Sqv5ixj8fm@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C985A47.3030101@drmicha.warpmail.net>

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 07:09, Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason venit, vidit, dixit 20.09.2010 22:37:
> Would it be possible to split the infrastructure part from the actual
> translations, i.e. have two or more dependent branches (which is
> probably easier than reordering on a single branch)?
>
> I know at least one locale where we're actually in the early stages of a
> fundamental discussion about translation principles. Blocking the whole
> series because of that makes no sense.
>
> Also, the set of reviewers for infrastructure parts will be quite
> different from that for individual translations.

Firstly I'm hoping this gets merged soon so this all becomes a non-issue.

But having multiple branches would be harder for me, I used to have three branches: infrastructure, gettextize and translations. Rebasing all of those on top of each other and testing each of them was a PITA, so I folded things back into one huge series.

But I don't think any of this is a problem for translators, they just have to pull down any version of the series and start cracking at "make pot && msginit ...". Maybe that POT file is *slightly* out of date, but the translation strings themselves are really stable at this point, so that's always going to be <1-2% of the translation that needs to be fixed up & unfuzzied.

So just submit translations, maybe they'll make it as part of the initial ab/i18n merge and maybe they won't.