Re: String changes in Evolution

["Christian Rose" <menthos gnome org>]

On 8/5/08, Matthew Barnes <mbarnes redhat com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 03:11 +0200, Christian Rose wrote:
>  > Hmm. Matthew, please take into consideration that
>  > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/MsgctxtMigration is only a suggestion
>  > right now. I know I suggested it in
>  > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=249844, but using msgctxt in
>  > Evolution right now may alter Evolutions dependencies on glib, gettext
>  > and intltool, and you should probably be clear that with Evolution
>  > maintainers first. If you want to play it safe in this regard, Q_ is
>  > still the safest way (albeit error prone to translators). That being
>  > said though, we would be very happy if Evolution really wants to be
>  > the first module to use msgctxt and the C_ macro.
>
> Evolution already requires GLib >= 2.16, and our broader policy is that
>  anything in the latest stable GNOME release is fair game

Ok.


>  (though I'm not sure how recently gettext and intltool added msgctxt support, so maybe
>  I've already violated policy there).

GNU gettext added msgctxt support with the 0.15 release on July 24,
2006, more than two years ago.

GLib added support for the C_ macro with the 2.15.0 release on Dec 21,
2007. However, noop support has been added later in the 2.17 series, I
think.

I'm unable to find release announcements about intltool that mention
C_, so cannot give details when support for C_ was released. Perhaps
someone else can clarify.


>  Assuming I haven't, what would be the impact of being the guinea pig for
>  msgctxt from a development standpoint?  Personally I'm indifferent at
>  this point, mostly out of naivety to the issues involved.

Probably not much. Perhaps questions from translators who are
unfamiliar with msgctxt and haven't followed these discussions, but
then again, just direct them to
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/MsgctxtMigration or to this mailing
list.


Christian