[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r10429 - branches/1.1.x/subversion/po

From: Max Bowsher <maxb_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2004-07-28 10:39:41 CEST

Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>>>> Log:
>>>> Merge translation updates.
>>>> Merge trunk revisions
>>>> r10254,
>>>> r10282,
>>>> r10409,
>>>> r10412,
>>>> r10415,
>>>> r10418,
>>>> r10423,
>>>> r10426.
>>> Some of these (the changes to es and sv) include formatting strings and
>>> require voting per hacking. Maybe this was discussed when you were
>> I thought by that we meant you couldn't change the argument ordering,
>> add any arguments to a message, or change the types of the arguments.
>> Not that you couldn't touch something that was used as a format call.
>> Now if you change a %d to %ld then you'd be violating that. But I don't
>> think adding:
>> +msgid "Unsupported FS loader version (%d) for fsfs"
>> +msgstr "Aplique RA binariamente incompatible (versión %d) para ra_dav"
>> violates thats. Am I missing some case where adding that would be bad?
> I'd love it to mean that. I think the idea is that the review and voting
> process should make sure that no strings slip through which do change
> parameters or parameter ordering.

I think the case illustrated by the above example is perfectly ok to merge.
Any committer doing .po merges to branches has responsibility to check
carefully that all the strings to merge really do have no format specifier

To help them, we might consider declaring that any revisions with format
specifier changes *MUST* say so in the log message.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jul 28 10:40:19 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.