Re: [PATCH 19/51] i18n: git-pull "rebase against" / "merge with" messages

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 4, 2011, 07:39 UTC
Message-ID: <BANLkTimHwSzm7MQ83gOt_OPFvZMn_2ca1g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1104031314520.25129@debian>

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 19:33, Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 16 quoted lines

> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> Gettextize the two messages that used "rebase against" and "merge
>> with". Split them into two depending on whether we are rebasing or not.
>
> I think this conflicts a lot with my 15a147e (rebase: use @{upstream}
> if no upstream specified, 2011-02-09), which factored out most or all
> of the code touched in your patch a reused it in git-rebase.sh. I
> remember thinking about i18n at some point while extracting that code,
> but then I forgot about it. I have inlcluded the relevant part of that
> patch below for your reference. As you can see, I added another
> variable $cmd that is either "pull" or "rebase". It is used in plain
> text because the command matches the verb in English, but I guess that
> may not be ideal in all translations. Maybe we extract some parts of
> the message, so we don't have to make four nearly identical copies of
> the message... I don't have any concrete suggestion right now, though.

Translation-wise we'd ideally make Yet Another Copy of almost the same message. There's really no way around that sort of thing given the tools we're using.

However we can probably get away with having a variable that alternates between "pull" and "rebase", but I suspect those two words will invoke different grammar rules in some languages, and thus will impact the rest of the message.

So let's split this up when we resolve this conflict.