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

> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> 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.