From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:35:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 Part II 5/8] bisect--helper: `bisect_next_check` shell function in C
Message-ID: <CAN0heSpRc5VwuMgusoPBegUSsc3t8USK6hm2wd5CyqNpKUiObg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0102015f5e5ee2ca-bf824205-86e6-4259-b7d7-a68e2fbb087d-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>

On 27 October 2017 at 17:06, Pranit Bauva <pranit.bauva@gmail.com> wrote:
> +               /*
> +                * have bad (or new) but not good (or old). We could bisect
> +                * although this is less optimum.
> +                */
> +               fprintf(stderr, _("Warning: bisecting only with a %s commit\n"),
> +                       terms->term_bad);

Maybe this should use `warning()`?

> -               # have bad (or new) but not good (or old).  we could bisect although
> -               # this is less optimum.
> -               eval_gettextln "Warning: bisecting only with a \$TERM_BAD commit." >&2

I wonder if we can somehow pick up the existing translation? It would
now be fuzzy, in some sense, but since the string was originally in a
different file, maybe the po-tools won't be able to discover the
fuzzyness? We could add a TRANSLATORS-comment, so that the translators
know that this string matches an old one. There are more strings like
that in this patch, and maybe in some others as well, I haven't looked.

(Adding Jiang to cc.)