Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH] l10n: add framework for localizing the manpages

Jean-Noël Avila <jn.avila@xxxxxxx> writes:

> Le 13/03/2017 à 01:01, Junio C Hamano a écrit :
>> +#. type: Plain text
>>> +#: git-add.txt:15
>>> +#, no-wrap
>>> +msgid ""
>>> +"'git add' [--verbose | -v] [--dry-run | -n] [--force | -f] [--interactive | -i] [--patch | -p]\n"
>>> +"\t  [--edit | -e] [--[no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--update | -u]]\n"
>>> +"\t  [--intent-to-add | -N] [--refresh] [--ignore-errors] [--ignore-missing]\n"
>>> +"\t  [--chmod=(+|-)x] [--] [<pathspec>...]\n"
>>> +msgstr ""
>>> +"'git add' [-n] [-v] [--force | -f] [--interactive | -i] [--patch | -p]\n"
>>> +"\t  [--edit | -e] [--[no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--update | -u]]\n"
>>> +"\t  [--intent-to-add | -N] [--refresh] [--ignore-errors] [--ignore-missing]\n"
>>> +"\t  [--] [<chemin>...]\n"
>> This shows that even after adding just _one_ new option to the
>> ...  A mere single
>> rephrasing of a word in a large paragraph would have to result in
>> the entire paragraph to be translated again?
> I'm not sure to clearly understand your point: if there is the
> introduction of a new option, there is a need to update the translation
> for sure.

You probably are used to po4a well enough to accept "the smallest
unit of translation is paragraph" as a natural given, and it may be
an acceptable way to work for those who actually do the translation.

Because I am not used to po4a and I don't do translation, "why I
have to update the above translation of the whole paragraph, in
response to a patch to rename just a single option", e.g.

	-	[--edit | -e] [--no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--update | -u]]
	+	[--edit | -e] [--no-]all | --[no-]ignore-removal | [--modify | -m]]

was a natural reaction for me.  In any case, I won't be doing the
translations, and those who work with po4a are happy with the tool,
that is fine by me.