From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:16:07 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] l10n: de.po: translate 11 new messages
Message-ID: <AE5DE037F2E44705AC6716EEB19948B1@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <20130128175514.GA2926@rath-ubuntu>

From: "Ralf Thielow" <ralf.thielow@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 5:55 PM
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:33:09AM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:
>> Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >  #: builtin/reset.c:275
>> > -#, fuzzy, c-format
>> > +#, c-format
>> >  msgid "Failed to resolve '%s' as a valid revision."
>> > -msgstr "Konnte '%s' nicht als gültige Referenz auflösen."
>> > +msgstr "Konnte '%s' nicht als gültige Revision auflösen."
>>
>> You don't have "revision" in the glossary[1] yet.  Wouldn't it be
>> appropriate to treat it as "commit", and translate as "Version" to
>> avoid
>> introducing yet another term?
>>
>> Or am I missing some subtle distinction between commit and revision?
>>
>
> I don't think there's a distinction.

It was a problem I had http://stackoverflow.com/a/11792712/717355
answered as:

See "SPECIFYING REVISIONS" of git rev-parse:

  A revision parameter <rev> typically, but not necessarily, names a 
commit object.
  It uses what is called an extended SHA1 syntax, [and includes] various 
ways to spell object names.

It had me confused for a while.

>                 Since we've already translated
> "revision" as "Revision" in a couple of other messages, I'll make a
> new "s/Revision/Version" commit on top.
>
>> Since it's only a single nit, feel free to add my ack when you
>> reroll:
>>
>> Acked-by: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/ralfth/git-po-de/wiki/Glossary
>>
>> -- 
>> Thomas Rast
>> trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
> --
Philip Oakley