Follow-up Comment #4, bug #17658 (project freeciv):

> Without looking the code I wonder if this should be 
> translatable at all. Does the setting really work if 
> string is translated, or does it depend of it being 
> exactly "freeciv 2.3.0"?
"freeciv 2.3.0" is the 'pretty' name of the value, and is not entered by
users or saved anywhere. The corresponding 'machine'/'rule' name (which must
not be translated or ever change) is "2.3.0".

This pretty/rule name pattern is common to all enumerated/bitwise options.
While we could avoid this string appearing in .po files by removing the N_()
markup, the pretty name will still be passed through _() anyway (and there's
not a lot we can do about that), so it's more honest to keep the N_() markup.
We can of course add a TRANS comment that tells translators not to worry about

> Any 2.3.a is supposed to be compatible with any 2.3.b, 
> so last zero is at least misleading (you have to use 
> 2.3.0 format to save for 2.3.7)
Well. From looking at the new save format stuff, I think part of the intended
point of it is to make future new servers able to save "old"-format games
(compatible with "old" servers back to 2.3.0, but not before). Given that,
this allows us to be more relaxed about savefile format changes; we could, if
we _really_ wanted to, make some change to the savefile format within the
2.3.x cycle, while still allowing server operators the choice to make
backward-compatible savefiles. It looks like a range of versions have been
reserved for this purpose. (I'm not sure what would drive us to this in a
stable release series; perhaps an undiscovered design flaw requiring a format


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Gna!

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to