Re: [PATCH] sideband: mark "remote error:" prefix for translation

> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:28:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>> 
>> > By the way, grepping for "remote error:" shows that when we get an error
>> > over sideband 3 we produce the same message but _don't_ translate it.
>> > That seems inconsistent.
>> 
>> IOW
>> 
>>     die(_("remote error: %s"), buf + 1);
>> 
>> in sideband.c?  I think it makes sense.
>
> Yes. Patch is below so we don't forget about it. I'm not sure if we
> ought to be going further, though. The "remote:" prefix for sideband 2
> isn't translated either. It would be easy to do so, but it's much more
> lego-like. We don't have "remote: %s" ever as a string. We just have
> "remote:", and then we maybe_colorize_sideband() the result.
>
> Would that be annoying for translators, especially with RTL languages?
> Do people actually want to see "remote:" (or "remote error:" for that
> matter) translated, or does mixing translated and untranslated messages
> on one line end up more confusing? I'm out of my element here, as I
> wouldn't ever use the translations myself.
>
>> IIRC, the current thinking is to let the remote side localize their
>> message before sending them over the wire and we'll worry about how
>> we let the receiving end tell what l10n it wants later.  So "remote
>> error:" prefix may have to be translated on receiving end and the
>> remainder of the line, which is already localized, can just be
>> interpolated.
>
> Yeah, that part makes sense. The local client shouldn't be translating
> what it gets from the server (and won't, because it is filled in via the
> %s). Adding a capability for preferred language would be easy, though I
> imagine it might be irritating in practice.  As a server admin, I want
> to see everything in the C locale; but what gets shown to users and what
> might get dumped into server logs is not well specified in Git. I have a
> feeling that just setting LANG based on the user's request would be a
> bit broad.
>
> Anyway, here's the patch. It doesn't seem to cause any test failures,
> even with GETTEXT_POISON. :)