Re: [PATCH] Gettext 0.19 errors; Workflow for irregular i18n contributors

[scl <scl gplus gmail com>]

Hi Piotr,

first of all thank you for your feedback!
Indeed there are some errors in my patch which I overlooked.
Four eyes see more than two.

On  14.6.2014 at 2:52 PM Piotr Drąg wrote:
> First, it uses an out of date checkout of the GTK+ repository.
Indeed my patch is based upon GTK 2.24.23 which is three months old.
Sorry, it was my fault to not base my patch on HEAD. What a luck I
didn't merge in the pot files.
I just checked the log of the directories po and po-properties and
their last changes are of 2013, so nothing has changed there since
the 2.24.23 release. Or am I missing something?

> Most of these files already have the Language tag.
Hmm, I added it only to those files where it was missing. Do you have
an example where it's already included?

> Second, it changes mode
> (permissions) of all po files, which should be avoided.
Sorry, this was my bad. I'll fix it.

> Third, it
> introduces format errors in these:
>
> po-properties/az.po
> po-properties/crh.po
> po-properties/ka.po
> po/crh.po
> po/ka.po
I guess, you mean the trails of the "Language-Team" entries, that were
continued on the next line, right? I'll fix this.
Or do you mean some non-obvious encoding differences or something else?

> Also, I think you should leave unrelated cleaning up of the headers up
> to the teams.
I considered this. On the other hand leaving a task to others
in a volunteers' environment is quite unreliable. Also this task is not
a challenging task people are keen on. Until the issue is completely
fixed upstreams the patch will rot in our own repository.
Therefore I'm rather doing it myself and offer my patch upstreams to be
on the safe side and get the job done quickly.

> Finally, it doesn't solve the problem with the hundreds
> of other modules in GNOME.
That's true and truly out of my scope. I'm only fixing the dependencies
in the GIMP project that could cause us problems (and this is already
more than one would expect or others would do).

> It's important to learn the maintainer's opinion before pushing bigger
> changes (I should know, I screwed gtk+'s POTFILES.in up in the past at
> least once...).
Yes, I understand that. Therefore I offered my patch here for discussion
rather than pushing it blindly to the GTK+ repository.

After all: I would fix the issues you mentioned and bring up an improved
patch. Would that be ok?

Kind regards,

Sven