From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (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 746612BAE8 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 16:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708620407; cv=none; b=p1AgBUsHeiEgO8UeK/r/wZKRPKZDzlOcJBkZ+oZVH6IjVwyvynJnoahDqy1EM486OM13QmsHkv4LasspDFrqBAxi755OgVYa1eWsNcGdSq4Edmva8mnDt/KNNgyxMy9PaDPQehTRDkdpprlACt2JyYJiXaI8n92mQekxU2OrDoU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1708620407; c=relaxed/simple; bh=f/IxnQOiZUcAGppqbDp3UCvc9SY/94vdYZuz+HtmJPg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=QHEDUnCTgBIltF9RHsvteV9tspLHSU2L8EB4uajpTpkmWCX3AGbaDrYsYdLp/WLzEBVwSe5OqkAkg1bqdIvgDc0U0g64fB/m0R+y+0HkX2Twww5zZ4ajhZY24MW1Y9VpEzUn3lVT05SVz47CgCnhghZOah+y2OSBzQkptzcTsbE= 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=IrYLGI+x; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.52 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="IrYLGI+x" Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922B51E56B; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:46:39 -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=f/IxnQOiZUcA GppqbDp3UCvc9SY/94vdYZuz+HtmJPg=; b=IrYLGI+xG6BAfQ7XRAsL17E2r4LW om6nv5zZHasK1hMYJ7QDO/uHD9SYQTfXJGuWEa8txe8GmA1PtqJ29ClXbfqaTy0/ cO2thkPjnXQsgSMpT5VR3upP5yOP+q115OW0/X6BSsFol11R3y5FtDut0QEBjPom 2bJgYfj7ZKMiNMA= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F131E56A; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:46:39 -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-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DBDD1E568; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:46:36 -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: <7633780.EvYhyI6sBW@cayenne> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Jean-No=C3=ABl?= AVILA"'s message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:01:59 +0100") References: <2324063.ElGaqSPkdT@cayenne> <7633780.EvYhyI6sBW@cayenne> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 08:46:34 -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: F138A39C-D1A1-11EE-A7E0-F515D2CDFF5E-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jean-No=C3=ABl AVILA writes: > About "again and again", I was more refering to strings such as "could = not=20 > stat '%s'" and then "could not stat file '%s'". I completely agree with that. But the message you responded was not about that kind of burden to translators. It was arguing that it somehow is better to update the in-code _("string") at the same time as updating msgid and msgstr in the same patch (it may not have been directly "arguing for", but essentially doing so with a rhetorical question). So your "I do not want to translate again and again" thrown into that context utterly confused me. I didn't quite see how the "everything in one patch" approach would help translaters by not having them translate "again and again". Thanks for clearing my confusion.