Jean-Noël Avila <jn.av...@free.fr> writes:
> Le 13/03/2017 à 01:01, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
>> +#. type: Plain text
>>> +#: git-add.txt:15
>>> +#, no-wrap
>>> +msgid ""
>>> +"'git add' [--verbose | -v] [--dry-run | -n] [--force | -f] [--interactive
>>> | -i] [--patch | -p]\n"
>>> +"\t [--edit | -e] [--[no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--update |
>>> -u]]\n"
>>> +"\t [--intent-to-add | -N] [--refresh] [--ignore-errors]
>>> [--ignore-missing]\n"
>>> +"\t [--chmod=(+|-)x] [--] [<pathspec>...]\n"
>>> +msgstr ""
>>> +"'git add' [-n] [-v] [--force | -f] [--interactive | -i] [--patch | -p]\n"
>>> +"\t [--edit | -e] [--[no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--update |
>>> -u]]\n"
>>> +"\t [--intent-to-add | -N] [--refresh] [--ignore-errors]
>>> [--ignore-missing]\n"
>>> +"\t [--] [<chemin>...]\n"
>> This shows that even after adding just _one_ new option to the
>> ... A mere single
>> rephrasing of a word in a large paragraph would have to result in
>> the entire paragraph to be translated again?
>
> I'm not sure to clearly understand your point: if there is the
> introduction of a new option, there is a need to update the translation
> for sure.
You probably are used to po4a well enough to accept "the smallest
unit of translation is paragraph" as a natural given, and it may be
an acceptable way to work for those who actually do the translation.
Because I am not used to po4a and I don't do translation, "why I
have to update the above translation of the whole paragraph, in
response to a patch to rename just a single option", e.g.
- [--edit | -e] [--no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--update |
-u]]
+ [--edit | -e] [--no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--modify |
-m]]
was a natural reaction for me. In any case, I won't be doing the
translations, and those who work with po4a are happy with the tool,
that is fine by me.
