2014-06-14 16:15 GMT+02:00 scl <scl.gp...@gmail.com>: > On 14.6.2014 at 2:52 PM Piotr Drąg wrote: >> First, it uses an out of date checkout of the GTK+ repository. > > Indeed my patch is based upon GTK 2.24.23 which is three months old. > Sorry, it was my fault to not base my patch on HEAD. What a luck I > didn't merge in the pot files. > I just checked the log of the directories po and po-properties and > their last changes are of 2013, so nothing has changed there since > the 2.24.23 release. Or am I missing something? >
I see, you want to fix the gtk-2-24 branch. I'm afraid it is low on the list of priorities. Couldn't you build GIMP with gettext 0.18.x until it's ported to GTK+3? >> Most of these files already have the Language tag. > Hmm, I added it only to those files where it was missing. Do you have > an example where it's already included? > I was thinking of the master branch, actually. In gtk-2-24 only a couple of po files have the tag, as you noticed. I'm not sure if it's worth fixing at this point, but GTK+'s developers might have a different opinion. >> Second, it changes mode >> (permissions) of all po files, which should be avoided. > > Sorry, this was my bad. I'll fix it. > > >> Third, it >> introduces format errors in these: >> >> po-properties/az.po >> po-properties/crh.po >> po-properties/ka.po >> po/crh.po >> po/ka.po > > I guess, you mean the trails of the "Language-Team" entries, that were > continued on the next line, right? I'll fix this. > Or do you mean some non-obvious encoding differences or something else? > Yes, I meant broken Language-Team headers. >> Also, I think you should leave unrelated cleaning up of the headers up >> to the teams. > > I considered this. On the other hand leaving a task to others > in a volunteers' environment is quite unreliable. Also this task is not > a challenging task people are keen on. Until the issue is completely > fixed upstreams the patch will rot in our own repository. > Therefore I'm rather doing it myself and offer my patch upstreams to be > on the safe side and get the job done quickly. > Well, in my opinion it's just cosmetics, but I fixed it for you in the master branch: https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/commit/?id=4406386ad9ed575efd280cc332c4b29f5517bdf1 >> Finally, it doesn't solve the problem with the hundreds >> of other modules in GNOME. > > That's true and truly out of my scope. I'm only fixing the dependencies > in the GIMP project that could cause us problems (and this is already > more than one would expect or others would do). > > >> It's important to learn the maintainer's opinion before pushing bigger >> changes (I should know, I screwed gtk+'s POTFILES.in up in the past at >> least once...). > > Yes, I understand that. Therefore I offered my patch here for discussion > rather than pushing it blindly to the GTK+ repository. > > After all: I would fix the issues you mentioned and bring up an improved > patch. Would that be ok? > > Kind regards, > > Sven > -- Piotr Drąg http://raven.fedorapeople.org/ _______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
