On 09/03/2012 04:58 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks for doing that. >> I really like this, but wouldn't it invalidate all the existing translations? >> It seems there would be a lot of work in transitioning coreutils usage() >> functions >> to the scheme, but even more work munging existing translations? > > Existing translations should remain (though marked fuzzy). Translators > just need to go through remove redundant parts.
Yep it would be a fairly manual process, and one that would need to be done en masse, so that many translations weren't invalidated on a new release. When I changed the df headings code to abstract the translations in a similar way, I updated all translations which Benno accepted as a single tarball udate. It took a couple of hours to do this though, so updating usage() for all commands could be a full day's work? > The thing is translations should be updated anyway because of > misalignment (I only checked ja and vi). We could use this opportunity > to avoid potential work for translators later (e.g. a new long option > is added and the whole table needs to be realigned, which currently > changes every help string, or a misalign in original strings > propagated to all translations). Good point. Would you be willing to update the translations as a group, if I concentrated on the coreutils side? thanks, Pádraig.
