Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> writes:
> No. Many of the changes you made to the build system were superfluous
> (adding make targets for configure et al.), or introduced a dependency
> upon automake and GNU make (like the po/Makefile.in.in file). As my
> patch demonstrated, they are unnecessary to support gettext.
>
> I do welcome your efforts to help with the i18n, but I'm not willing
> to see us compromise our build system in the process. -- justin
Nicolás, let me say what Justin's saying in another way:
We don't want to mix unrelated changes. Supporting i18n via gettext
is one logical set of changes. There may be other "improvements" you
want to make to the build system, but if they are not necessary for
the i18n work, then they should not be mixed into the i18n patches.
*Even* if everyone agreed that they were improvements, they would
still need to be evaluated as independent changes (but clearly, not
everyone agrees, so they'd need discussion first anyway).
So the point is: try to keep the i18n changes as small as possible,
and don't mix them with other goals. When people review the i18n
changes, they will assume that everything they see is directly related
to the single i18n goal -- if any part of the change falls outside
that scope, it makes review much more difficult.
Thanks,
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 30 21:04:04 2004