Re: English/German terminology, git.git's de.po, and pro-git

[Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>]

Ralf Thielow <ralf.thielow@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I think the discussion might work better via ML than GitHub.
> This is the full glossary of git's de.po as it would look
> like with (hopefully) all the changes included that have been
> discussed here. Still without any reasoning for decisions
> (except HEAD).
[...]
> +    remote branch          = externer Zweig
> +    remote tracking branch = externer Übernahmezweig

Hrm, before we (erm, you) do any extensive work on redoing the glossary,
I think we should step back and agree on a direction.

Remember what this thread started with:

} However, an unfortunate and unsatisfactory situation has developed:
} Christian Stimming's git-gui de.po uses a Ger translation, and Ralf
} Thielow built core git's de.po on top of it, so it's also Ger.
} 
} Meanwhile, and independently, Sven Fuchs and Ralph Haussmann wrote a
} translation of pro-git (which is also quite mature at this point, having
} apparently begun in 2009), and as you probably guessed by now, it's G+E.
} 
} So that leaves us at a point where "the" libre Git book (and also the
} one that happens to be hosted on git-scm.com, the official site) does
} not match the terminology used by German git.
} 
} Like, at all.  They're not even remotely near each other.

My thinly veiled opinion in the thread starter was that we should redo
git's de.po from scratch using a translation similar to pro-git.

I can accept that discussion takes a different turn, and thus the
translation does something else.  But my impression in the thread so far
was that:

* Everyone voted for G+E.

* The thread went of on a tangent, bikeshedding on some Ger
  translations.

Please tell me I'm wrong...

Otherwise, assuming any agreement can be reached, IMHO the first step
must be to write/complete a glossary that matches *current usage* in
pro-git.  We can perhaps bikeshed about some glaring issues in the
result, but remember that -- again assuming G+E is the conclusion -- any
such change again either means a divergence between book and git (bad!)
or a lot of work for the book translators.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch