Re: [PATCH] parse-options: print "fatal:" before usage_msg_opt()
- From
Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 19, 2016, 13:53 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CACsJy8BgfyDTUmNh_PvoVcz2q92eNTRZy5myegTdi8mu6imVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20161219134148.vxa4fz3jw2i23lfm@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 07:07:19PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:10:10AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>> > diff --git a/parse-options.c b/parse-options.c
>> > index 312a85dbd..4fbe924a5 100644
>> > --- a/parse-options.c
>> > +++ b/parse-options.c
>> > @@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ void NORETURN usage_msg_opt(const char *msg,
>> > const char * const *usagestr,
>> > const struct option *options)
>> > {
>> > - fprintf(stderr, "%s\n\n", msg);
>> > + fprintf(stderr, "fatal: %s\n\n", msg);
>>
>> Your commit message does not make clear if you want this "fatal" to be
>> grep-able (by scripts) or not. If not, please _() the string. Maybe
>> this to reduce work for translators
>>
>> /* TRANSLATORS: this is the prefix before usage error */
>> fprintf(stderr, "%s %s\n\n", _("fatal:"), msg);
>
> I don't think we translate any of our "fatal:", "error:", etc, do we?
> It certainly doesn't look like it in usage.c.I know. But those existed before the l10n starts, some of those belong to plumbing messages. This one is new.
-- Duy