From: "Ralf Thielow" <>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 5:55 PM
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:33:09AM +0100, Thomas Rast wrote:
Ralf Thielow <> writes:

>  #: builtin/reset.c:275
> -#, fuzzy, c-format
> +#, c-format
>  msgid "Failed to resolve '%s' as a valid revision."
> -msgstr "Konnte '%s' nicht als gültige Referenz auflösen."
> +msgstr "Konnte '%s' nicht als gültige Revision auflösen."

You don't have "revision" in the glossary[1] yet.  Wouldn't it be
appropriate to treat it as "commit", and translate as "Version" to
introducing yet another term?

Or am I missing some subtle distinction between commit and revision?

I don't think there's a distinction.

It was a problem I had
answered as:

See "SPECIFYING REVISIONS" of git rev-parse:

A revision parameter <rev> typically, but not necessarily, names a commit object. It uses what is called an extended SHA1 syntax, [and includes] various ways to spell object names.

It had me confused for a while.

                Since we've already translated
"revision" as "Revision" in a couple of other messages, I'll make a
new "s/Revision/Version" commit on top.

Since it's only a single nit, feel free to add my ack when you

Acked-by: Thomas Rast <>


Thomas Rast
Philip Oakley
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to