From: Junio C Hamano Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:33:31 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] i18n: notes: mark comment for translation Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1469616819.1858.25.camel@sapo.pt> Vasco Almeida writes: > A Ter, 26-07-2016 às 09:57 -0700, Junio C Hamano escreveu: >> Vasco Almeida writes: >> >> > >> > + strbuf_add_commented_lines(&buf, "\n", >> > strlen("\n")); >> > + strbuf_add_commented_lines(&buf, _(note_template), >> > strlen(_(note_template))); >> > + strbuf_add_commented_lines(&buf, "\n", >> > strlen("\n")); >> >> Hmm, do we really need to make three separate calls? > > This patch does (1) > > # > # Write/edit the notes for the following object: > # > > The original source does (2) > > # > # Write/edit the notes for the following object: > > How do we want, (1) or (2) ? As I said earlier I was misreading the original one. The input to strbuf_add_commented_lines() actually is a string that uses LF as a record terminator and asks the function to output each record on its own line prefixed with either "#" or "# ", so I should have considered the last LF as part of the second line. In other words, the output should be as if you just did - "\nWrite/edit the notes for the following object:\n"; + N_("\nWrite/edit the notes for the following object:\n"); in your patch, i.e. (2). Thanks.