Re: [Gimp-developer] Translating GIMP from GIMP master (is wrong)

[Michael Natterer <mitch gimp org>]

On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 14:28 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am Mittwoch 09 Mai 2012, um 14:10:41 schrieb Michael Natterer:
> > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 13:35 +0200, Michael Natterer wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 11:30 +0200, Gabor Kelemen wrote:
> > > > 2012-05-09 10:41 keltezéssel, Michael Natterer írta:
> > > > > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 10:55 +0300, Cristian Secară wrote:
> > > > >> În data de Wed, 09 May 2012 09:20:23 +0200, Michael Natterer a scris:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> what was commited on 10 Feb 2012 is:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> commit eb93f484c8ad8da3606ab1b44ab8a7f143ea089e
> > > > >>> Author: Daniel Șerbănescu<cyber19rider gmail com>
> > > > >>> Date:   Fri Feb 10 19:35:57 2012 +0100
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>      Updated Romanian translation
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>   po-script-fu/ro.po | 4003
> > > > >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------------
> > > > >>>   1 file changed, 1603 insertions(+), 2400 deletions(-)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> and puts the file exactly into the current state. Please tell the
> > > > >>> committer that he messed up and have him restore the file to what you
> > > > >>> translated.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hmm, strange. Ok, I will tell him, but I cannot do that right away,
> > > > >> I mean not before the template file from 2.8 script-fu will be reverted
> > > > >> too.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What is common with this 61 number ? Why was my file screwed in February
> > > > >> down to 61 strings and now in May the template file and the rest of all
> > > > >> languages also screwed down to 61 strings ? I find hard to believe
> > > > >> (though possible) that in February it was just the committer fault.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So, when will be the 2.8 script-fu template reverted ?
> > > > >
> > > > > You are right, generating a new template results in 62 strings.
> > > > >
> > > > > There seems to be a bug in intltool-update --pot that only
> > > > > extracts strings which immediately follow a '(', so
> > > > >
> > > > > (_"foo"  ends up in the template
> > > > >
> > > > > but
> > > > >
> > > > > _"foo"  doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least that's the pattern I found when looking at the pot file
> > > > > and the scheme source files.
> > > > >
> > > > > To the folks on gnome-i18n gnome org: did you ever hear of this
> > > > > issue? Can you investigate it? I'm sure there are more i18n experts
> > > > > on gnome-i18n gnome org than on gimp-developer-list ;)
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, I met this here: 
> > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-translations/+bug/986897
> > > > 
> > > > Seems like a recent change in intltool causes this, which makes the 
> > > > scheme string extraction done by xgettext instead of intltools built-in 
> > > > and dropped parser.
> > > > 
> > > > In turn, http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/gettext.html#Scheme 
> > > > says that the gettext shorthand for scheme strings is (_"foo"), so I 
> > > > think your source files should be modified to conform this notation.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, we will fix that.
> > 
> > Well, that (_"foo") is broken, it's an illegal function call, so that
> > can't be what we should put there :(
> 
> I guess it should read (_ "foo") instead of (_"foo") here...?

Yes, and that produces another error message :( I guess we'll have to
fix script-fu.

Thanks,
--mitch