Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mar jun 21 07:36:05 -0400 2011: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:20, Michael Meskes <mes...@postgresql.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 04:44:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> My recollection is that the current setup was created mainly so that > >> translators wouldn't need to be given commit privileges on the main > >> repo. Giving them a separate repo to work in might be all right, but > >> of course whoever does the merges would have to be careful to only > >> accept changes made to the .po files and not anything else. > > > > IIRC this is exactly what git submodules are for. We could do a git archive > > only for translations as a submodule for our main git. That way translators > > would only clone the translation git, while we still have the translations > > in > > the source tree in the main git. At least this is how I think it works. > > AFAIK (but I could be wrong), git submodules requires the files to be > in *one* subdirectory. Our .po files are distributed all across the > backend. So we'd have to make (and backpatch) som rather large changes > in how these things are built in order to use that.
If git submodules are so cool that we still want to use them, maybe we still can -- can a submodule be submodule of more than one module? If so, we could create one submodule for each subdir that the translations are stored in (about 20 currently), and then have a pgtranslation meta-project that binds them all together as submodules. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
