Re: [PATCH] PRItime: wrap PRItime for better l10n compatibility

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Sat, 22 Jul 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> >> >> A very small hack on gettext.
> >
> > I am 100% opposed to this hack. It is already cumbersome enough to find
> > out what is involved in i18n (it took *me* five minutes to find out that
> > much of the information is in po/README, with a lot of information stored
> > *on an external site*, and I still managed to miss the `make pot` target).
> >
> > If at all, we need to make things easier instead of harder.
> >
> > Requiring potential volunteers to waste their time to compile an
> > unnecessary fork of gettext? Not so great an idea.
> >
> > Plus, each and every Git build would now have to compile their own
> > gettext, too, as the vanilla one would not handle the .po files containing
> > %<PRItime>!!!
> >
> > And that requirement would impact instantaneously people like me, and even
> > worse: some other packagers might be unaware of the new requirement which
> > would not be caught during the build, and neither by the test suite.
> > Double bad idea.
> 
> If I understand correctly, the patch hacks the input processing of
> xgettext (which reads our source code and generates po/git.pot) so
> that when it sees PRItime, pretend that it saw PRIuMAX, causing it
> to output %<PRIuMAX> in its output.

Oh, I missed that. That's even worse, as it precludes what you were
wishing for: to replace timestamp_t by a signed data type eventually.

Ciao,
Dscho