From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7233480C for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 01:43:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708566197; cv=none; b=SDQmLvc+XIbJk1W3Fl1xd81JNbCE+EBInkL+yNFsjhFK90J18/zObXiVdCp6l28uGLFFKYfNogxNFYeJFEj8lwrKSV5WnZcKGukR7Lm+66nC2xwgJoolfnnfQOV13dBZAGbG5bUqYRx/UFHZXqG3lNSjKlwYLFsEdiXkEzpFm2Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708566197; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MBRfogY4BRUwgkKhABV9PSxZHnVMh935SDs1HYuMT00=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JIFW2PRyH4ChPwBx8sVl14ru3gQIb1T7H3aSw72r3SSl+kc2ojmvUEad2kMMa8/4KHCvRCQKANuINKUdydUl5UaSa5xhrGXrFSD1ChuBdqiml/C95+FRqVAw7ODremK2I2fsemSdBcoNyN5a2rXTSsjT3MihOYR6Jvfz3TeOOaY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=AhpkG6t7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="AhpkG6t7" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CEBC348E3; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 20:43:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=MBRfogY4BRUw gkKhABV9PSxZHnVMh935SDs1HYuMT00=; b=AhpkG6t75Q8Edv5P3Je8Ze+AJhvv sVUqjWYlc/4+IvlYnEjJQFRFGjU8fvH62bu3ghUT1/jfNtwQ8gDqjYohmQFTKP2c 6wnGOQ/IizKuEFJYxmxHL/NYukbyaHIsIvbJ/nlG33LifV4YDAJ6yIYmHvwr6dPp VeM7eq6/fIRXNhU= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35984348E2; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 20:43:10 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.176.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D09C6348E1; Wed, 21 Feb 2024 20:43:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: =?utf-8?Q?Jean-No=C3=ABl?= AVILA Cc: Michal =?utf-8?Q?Such=C3=A1nek?= , Harmen Stoppels via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Harmen Stoppels Subject: Re: [PATCH] rebase: make warning less passive aggressive In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:46:10 -0800") References: <20240221183018.GB9696@kitsune.suse.cz> <2324063.ElGaqSPkdT@cayenne> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 17:43:05 -0800 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B9F0FCA0-D123-11EE-B427-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Junio C Hamano writes: > Jean-No=C3=ABl AVILA writes: > >> As a translator, I'm less bothered by editing a sentence to remove a q= uestion=20 >> mark (maybe enforcing a language style and reformulating the sentence = by the=20 >> way), than by translating again and again similar sentences. > > Sure, but if the original in C locale used to be "FOO BAR?" and you > translated it to "foo bar?" in your language, and then a patch > updates the string in the source to "FOO BAR", doesn't msgmerge > notice that the original as a "fuzzy" matching and offer you > something like > > #, fuzzy > msgid "FOO BAR" > msgstr "foo bar?" > > so that all you have to do is to remove '?' anyway? So I do not > think you'd need to translate the "FOO BAR" part again and again. > > But the above assumes that for your language, the ONLY thing to turn > such a rhetorical "passive aggressive" question into grammatically > correct statement of a fact is to remove the question mark. It may > not be universally true for all languages, and for some language, > even after msgmerge did its job correctly, you may need to do more > than just removing the question mark to adjust the remaining "foo > bar" part. Hopefully the last message on this topic from me. I just tried this: * apply v2 of "No rebase in progress?" -> "no rebase in progress" patch from Harmen. This only changed _("") string, without touching any po/* files. * follow po/README.md and pretend as if I were a po/es.po team member, which involved running the command: $ make po-update PO_FILE=3Dpo/es.po * view the resulting po/es.po, which will be the starting point of a new translation. $ git diff po/es.po The last one showed me this snippet: -msgid "No rebase in progress?" +#: builtin/rebase.c:1257 +#, fuzzy +msgid "no rebase in progress" msgstr "=C2=BFNo hay rebase en progreso?" The "#, fuzzy" thing is a signal that an old msgid has been updated and corresponding msgstr may need to be updated. The primary problem I had with Harmen's v1 was that it touched po/ file in the first place (which was corrected in v2), but the updates to po files it did looked like so: -msgid "No rebase in progress?" +msgid "No rebase in progress" msgstr "=C2=BFNo hay rebase en progreso?" Notice the lack of "#, fuzzy" marking? If v1 were accepted with these changes, then the "po-update" step I showed earlier would have produced something like this instead: +#: builtin/rebase.c:1257 msgid "no rebase in progress" msgstr "=C2=BFNo hay rebase en progreso?" As msgid alone was updated already, the "po-update" step has no idea that the translated msgstr is out of date. We do not get the helpful "#, fuzzy" comment to tell the translator which msgstr is out of date and needs attention. So it is another reason why we want the developers to concentrate only on writing good C-locale messages inside _("") and N_(""), without touching po/ directory at all. It would avoid making changes that can confuse toolchain l10n people rely on (like the presence of "fuzzy" comments).