From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7AE1F531 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:18:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726045AbgHGUSx (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:18:53 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:61123 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725893AbgHGUSx (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:18:53 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90100F68A2; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:18:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=22Q9YRv0lw63StNftWAJsA96NVM=; b=qhQcKB y0FQf900V3z9Ed4Tt2J3Tv6Fkr37ta6yQRmcu5UDmv0NRraVYeMQqXcKWF30FyQz 8znNwZxeRgTh1iTlBMujhf30mnVn6L9uPHR1FqTPlb2nFy528GBo3Ib2tqrU70UR 7QokQTg850J94vWnUBRz/CGaq9aiwBj70JZuQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=qUMC1ymFIKh0MNcH11QY01zb0YSRV5TN JHYlcR1VVtERWJCuvaVaCauu8ThIxoolFzd4LAzQ37Iq1WL3rm+bON+XyzEBAr7R eI1uoa9UeegaTLKXmEMQdabrz+EVFWtBUwb1UTjd2gE261xYScM1J13aoqYSaHZW dA0mRcM2KU0= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D20F68A1; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:18:51 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D04C6F68A0; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:18:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: SZEDER =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= , Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sideband: mark "remote error:" prefix for translation References: <20200805084240.GA1802257@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200805090641.GR2898@szeder.dev> <20200805092658.GA1803042@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20200807085649.GA34210@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:18:47 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20200807085649.GA34210@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Fri, 7 Aug 2020 04:56:49 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 33F2C34C-D8EB-11EA-888F-843F439F7C89-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:28:42AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff King writes: >> >> > By the way, grepping for "remote error:" shows that when we get an error >> > over sideband 3 we produce the same message but _don't_ translate it. >> > That seems inconsistent. >> >> IOW >> >> die(_("remote error: %s"), buf + 1); >> >> in sideband.c? I think it makes sense. > > Yes. Patch is below so we don't forget about it. I'm not sure if we > ought to be going further, though. The "remote:" prefix for sideband 2 > isn't translated either. It would be easy to do so, but it's much more > lego-like. We don't have "remote: %s" ever as a string. We just have > "remote:", and then we maybe_colorize_sideband() the result. > > Would that be annoying for translators, especially with RTL languages? > Do people actually want to see "remote:" (or "remote error:" for that > matter) translated, or does mixing translated and untranslated messages > on one line end up more confusing? I'm out of my element here, as I > wouldn't ever use the translations myself. > >> IIRC, the current thinking is to let the remote side localize their >> message before sending them over the wire and we'll worry about how >> we let the receiving end tell what l10n it wants later. So "remote >> error:" prefix may have to be translated on receiving end and the >> remainder of the line, which is already localized, can just be >> interpolated. > > Yeah, that part makes sense. The local client shouldn't be translating > what it gets from the server (and won't, because it is filled in via the > %s). Adding a capability for preferred language would be easy, though I > imagine it might be irritating in practice. As a server admin, I want > to see everything in the C locale; but what gets shown to users and what > might get dumped into server logs is not well specified in Git. I have a > feeling that just setting LANG based on the user's request would be a > bit broad. > > Anyway, here's the patch. It doesn't seem to cause any test failures, > even with GETTEXT_POISON. :) ;-) Thanks. Queued.