Re: [PATCH v3 24/39] i18n: bisect: enable l10n of bisect terms in messages
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 1, 2016, 17:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq4m9czu5u.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1464799289-7639-25-git-send-email-vascomalmeida@sapo.pt>
Vasco Almeida <vascomalmeida@sapo.pt> writes:
Show 33 quoted lines
> +enum term { BAD, GOOD, OLD, NEW };
> +static const char *term_names[] = {
> +/* TRANSLATORS: in bisect.c source code file, the following terms are
> + used to describe a "bad commit", "good commit", "new revision", etc.
> + Please, if you can, check the source when you are not sure if a %s
> + would be replaced by one of the following terms. */
> + N_("bad"), N_("good"), N_("old"), N_("new"), NULL
> +};
> +
> /* Remember to update object flag allocation in object.h */
> #define COUNTED (1u<<16)
>
> @@ -725,12 +734,12 @@ static void handle_bad_merge_base(void)
> if (is_expected_rev(current_bad_oid)) {
> char *bad_hex = oid_to_hex(current_bad_oid);
> char *good_hex = join_sha1_array_hex(&good_revs, ' ');
> - if (!strcmp(term_bad, "bad") && !strcmp(term_good, "good")) {
> + if (!strcmp(term_bad, term_names[BAD]) && !strcmp(term_good, term_names[GOOD])) {
> fprintf(stderr, _("The merge base %s is bad.\n"
> "This means the bug has been fixed "
> "between %s and [%s].\n"),
> bad_hex, bad_hex, good_hex);
> - } else if (!strcmp(term_bad, "new") && !strcmp(term_good, "old")) {
> + } else if (!strcmp(term_bad, term_names[NEW]) && !strcmp(term_good, term_names[OLD])) {
> fprintf(stderr, _("The merge base %s is new.\n"
> "The property has changed "
> "between %s and [%s].\n"),
> @@ -739,7 +748,7 @@ static void handle_bad_merge_base(void)
> fprintf(stderr, _("The merge base %s is %s.\n"
> "This means the first '%s' commit is "
> "between %s and [%s].\n"),
> - bad_hex, term_bad, term_good, bad_hex, good_hex);
> + bad_hex, _(term_bad), _(term_good), bad_hex, good_hex);These "bad" and "good" that are compared with term_bad and term_good are the literal tokens the end user gives from the "git bisect" command line. I do not think you would want to catch them with
$ git bisect novo <rev>
$ git bisect velho <rev>unless the user has done
$ git bisect --term-old=velho --term-new=novo
previously.
And that "custom bisect terms" case is covered by the last "else" clause in this if/elseif cascade (outside the context we can see in your message).
The only thing you need to do around here is to mark the string as translatable. I do not think we need "enum term", or term_names[].
Show 6 quoted lines
> @@ -747,7 +756,7 @@ static void handle_bad_merge_base(void)
> fprintf(stderr, _("Some %s revs are not ancestor of the %s rev.\n"
> "git bisect cannot work properly in this case.\n"
> "Maybe you mistook %s and %s revs?\n"),
> - term_good, term_bad, term_good, term_bad);
> + _(term_good), _(term_bad), _(term_good), _(term_bad));Likewise for all _(term_good), _(term_bad) and use of term_names[] we see in this patch.