2013/5/16 Thomas Rast <tr...@inf.ethz.ch>:
> Ralf Thielow <ralf.thie...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Hi,
>> I think the discussion might work better via ML than GitHub.
>> This is the full glossary of git's de.po as it would look
>> like with (hopefully) all the changes included that have been
>> discussed here. Still without any reasoning for decisions
>> (except HEAD).
> [...]
>> +    remote branch          = externer Zweig
>> +    remote tracking branch = externer √úbernahmezweig
> Hrm, before we (erm, you) do any extensive work on redoing the glossary,
> I think we should step back and agree on a direction.
> Remember what this thread started with:
> } However, an unfortunate and unsatisfactory situation has developed:
> } Christian Stimming's git-gui de.po uses a Ger translation, and Ralf
> } Thielow built core git's de.po on top of it, so it's also Ger.
> }
> } Meanwhile, and independently, Sven Fuchs and Ralph Haussmann wrote a
> } translation of pro-git (which is also quite mature at this point, having
> } apparently begun in 2009), and as you probably guessed by now, it's G+E.
> }
> } So that leaves us at a point where "the" libre Git book (and also the
> } one that happens to be hosted on git-scm.com, the official site) does
> } not match the terminology used by German git.
> }
> } Like, at all.  They're not even remotely near each other.
> My thinly veiled opinion in the thread starter was that we should redo
> git's de.po from scratch using a translation similar to pro-git.
> I can accept that discussion takes a different turn, and thus the
> translation does something else.  But my impression in the thread so far
> was that:
> * Everyone voted for G+E.
> * The thread went of on a tangent, bikeshedding on some Ger
>   translations.
> Please tell me I'm wrong...
> Otherwise, assuming any agreement can be reached, IMHO the first step
> must be to write/complete a glossary that matches *current usage* in
> pro-git.  We can perhaps bikeshed about some glaring issues in the
> result, but remember that -- again assuming G+E is the conclusion -- any
> such change again either means a divergence between book and git (bad!)
> or a lot of work for the book translators.

Well, that's what I'm trying to do, writing a new glossary. But I took
the current git's de.po glossay as the base, because it's the biggest one
and easier to apply to de.po instead of using a complete new one.
I tried to merge [1] (link is dead) to match ProGit-Book where it's possible.
IMO it's OK if we don't match the ProGit-book in all terms (I didn't do it with
intention), but it's not OK if the translations are so far away from each other
that it becomes a problem to the users because they're using totally different
What I'm doing now is collecting objections and suggestions from others (ML, GH)
and apply them to the glossary in order to get a version where everybody
more or less agree with.

[1] https://github.com/progit/progit/blob/master/de/NOTES

> --
> Thomas Rast
> trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to