On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 22:20, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On mån, 2011-06-20 at 13:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Excerpts from Michael Meskes's message of lun jun 20 09:54:36 -0400 2011: >> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:15:52AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > > Yep. Peter overrides them just before each release. >> > >> > Aren't there better ways to implement this, like git submodules? This >> > redundancy seem awkward to me. >> >> There might be, but currently the translations are still using the CVS >> machinery on pgfoundry. This stuff predates our move to Git. It's >> possible that Peter already changed the msgstr in pgtranslation ... >> >> Peter is working on moving that CVS stuff to Git, but AFAIR it will >> happen once 9.1 has released. > > A better way might be that translators simply work on a clone of the > source repository, which is then merged (as in, git merge) at release > time. There are some issues with that to figure out, but it sounds like > the obviously right thing, from an interface point of view.
I don't think we want to track every single translation update as commits in the main repository - we don't do that for non-translation stuff... If it's a squash-merge, that's a different thing, of course... Other than that, yes, keeping translations in git branches seems like a good interface. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers