Às 17:38 de 01-06-2016, Junio C Hamano escreveu:
> Vasco Almeida <vascomalme...@sapo.pt> writes:
>
>> +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.
I may be misunderstanding you, but we do not "catch" those terms with
this patch, although I'm not sure what you mean by "catch them". I think
you forget that no-operation N_("good"), does not affect in any way the
string "good", it only enables xgettext to extract it to .pot file, does
not trigger translation.
Overall, I don't understand what are you trying to tell me here.
>
> 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[].
This patch tries to make bisect output those term translated within the
also translated message. To enable this, it is handy to have
term_names[] in order to mark each term, although I could have mark them
anywhere they appeared in the source. It was only for that I chose to
have term_names[].
>
>> @@ -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.
>
Indeed this was more of a PATCH/RFC to see what people would think of
it. If nobody contest and there is no value in it, I'll happily drop
this patch in the next re-roll.
My motivation for this patch was that a user could feel embarrassment
reading a message in her language with those terms untranslated.
Although I do believe that no translating them is also a possibility.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
