On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 01:36:11PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 09:18:35PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote:
> > The problem was that xgettext, a tool to extract messages from source
> > code to put it into a .pot translation template file, failed to parse
> > these strings containing macros. This resulted in no such messages
> > in the translation PO files (and were that's why not translated) which I
> > fixed by manually inserting these messages.
> > Without macros xgettext works well and even after the next po-update.py
> > call PO files no messages will be missing.
I noticed that there seems some confusion about the patches, that's why I
explained it in a little bit more detail.
> Including this kind of information in your log messages would
> be a very, very nice thing to do. In the log, you only mention "xgettext
> problem" and "xgettext limitation". That provides no information at all
The log for r31484 contains:
Use workaround for an xgettext limitation.
xgettext fails to look up macros in some messages so that these are not put
into PO files and that's why untranslated. This patch explicitly adds
duplicates of these strings with manually expanded macros.
r31496 is shorter:
Marked a further string explicitly translatable which is also missed by
Added additional GETTEXT_NOOP macro. Also use consistent comments near
other affected strings.
Maybe I should have added a "Follow-up to r31496" is it. Sorry for
omitting it. Nevertheless "further" indicates that there was a similar
> to the reader. Not everyone knows what xgettext is, let alone what
Mhm, OK. But also not everyone knows apr and it isn't always explained :-)
I assumed indeed that it is known (at least for the initial committer).
Just asking for details after reading
had maybe avoid some confusion too ...
By the way, the direct reply of this mail confused me as I missed apr
> its quirks are. Could you propedit the log messages for the revisions
> where you fixed the problem?
I could and incorporated already previous comments from you (by adding
Approved-by: tags, ...) but here I'm not sure how to proceed. Please
change it yourself.
> And, by the way, what you wrote above is also a good example for
> what you could have sent to the list in order to discuss the fix before
I did so with a previous patch. Since I also planned at the beginning
to apply it later to 1.5.x as well (after getting permission!) to fix
the three untranslated messages and since there was nearly no further
time to wait for comments because of the release I tried to risk
committing it to trunk. Please note that I honoured the (bogus?) comment
I got to my mail by changing N_ into GETTEXT_NOOP.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-30 14:12:20 CEST