Re: [PATCH] PRItime: wrap PRItime for better l10n compatibility
- From
Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
- Date
- Jul 25, 2017, 10:22 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1707251221160.4271@virtualbox>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqqeft8fp5j.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
Hi,
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 27 quoted lines
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes: > > >> >> A very small hack on gettext. > > > > I am 100% opposed to this hack. It is already cumbersome enough to find > > out what is involved in i18n (it took *me* five minutes to find out that > > much of the information is in po/README, with a lot of information stored > > *on an external site*, and I still managed to miss the `make pot` target). > > > > If at all, we need to make things easier instead of harder. > > > > Requiring potential volunteers to waste their time to compile an > > unnecessary fork of gettext? Not so great an idea. > > > > Plus, each and every Git build would now have to compile their own > > gettext, too, as the vanilla one would not handle the .po files containing > > %<PRItime>!!! > > > > And that requirement would impact instantaneously people like me, and even > > worse: some other packagers might be unaware of the new requirement which > > would not be caught during the build, and neither by the test suite. > > Double bad idea. > > If I understand correctly, the patch hacks the input processing of > xgettext (which reads our source code and generates po/git.pot) so > that when it sees PRItime, pretend that it saw PRIuMAX, causing it > to output %<PRIuMAX> in its output.
Oh, I missed that. That's even worse, as it precludes what you were wishing for: to replace timestamp_t by a signed data type eventually.
Ciao, Dscho