Re: Stable ab/i18n branch

From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 14, 2010, 21:50 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTin-s8EqssfuOeM6vAmBOFF=JrtgzS96hTSFKZ90@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=LEzQu5_EyJ_ncRmsHfufG=AnEv9+eTQuqh5W7@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 20:54, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> So what I've tried to do to make this acceptable for inclusion in core
> is to make this whole thing a no-op unless it's explicitly
> requested.
>

I agree with Jonathan that there might be some value to clearly delineating the i18n infrastructure from the application of it to the rest of the code base.The i18n infrastructure should be, relatively speaking, less invasive than the application of it throughout the code base.

It would be good for Junio (I presume) to have the option to integrate the infrastructure in one hit, but allow the application of it to be deferred, perhaps on a subject-area by subject-area basis.

jon.