From: Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 21:50:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Stable ab/i18n branch
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:
> 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.