Re: [PATCH] PRItime: wrap PRItime for better l10n compatibility

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 22, 2017, 15:53 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa83wfoxj.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1707221320350.4271@virtualbox>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 20 quoted lines

> On Fri, 21 Jul 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jean-Noël Avila <jn.avila@free.fr> writes:
>> 
>> > Le 20/07/2017 à 20:57, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> +	git diff --quiet HEAD && git diff --quiet --cached
>> >> +
>> >> +	@for s in $(LOCALIZED_C) $(LOCALIZED_SH) $(LOCALIZED_PERL); \
>> >
>> > Does PRIuMAX make sense for perl and sh files?
>> 
>> Not really; I did this primarily because I would prefer to keep
>> things consistent, anticipating there may be some other things we
>> need to replace before running gettext(1) for other reasons later.
>
> It would add unnecessary churn, too, to add those specific exclusions and
> make things inconsistent: the use of PRItime in Perl or shell scripts
> would already make those scripts barf. And if it is unnecessary churn...
> let's not do it?

Sorry, but I cannot quite tell if you are in favor of limiting the set of source files that go through the sed substitution (because we know PRIuMAX is just as nonsensical as PRItime in perl and shell source), or if you are in favor of keeping the patch as-is (because changing the set of source files is a churn and substitutions would not hurt)?

I am actually OK to change the above loop to process only the C sources; I am not OK to change it to process only date.c which happens to be the only source that has PRItime that matters in this context, of course.

Thanks.