Subject: Re: Has anyone looked at Gettext support for Git itself?

From: Will Palmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 19:56:59 +0100

On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 19:59 +0200, Jan Hudec wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 17:12:22 +0200, Thomas Rast wrote:
> > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 14:32, Thomas Rast <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
> There are cases though, where somebody calls *porcelain* commands in their
> scripts and there they occasionally may need this LC_ALL=C thing. I suppose
> having a global option to turn off localization might be useful for such
> users.

Would it be that bad to define something like GIT_PLUMBING=1 to mean "I
am using this as plumbing"? It seems that this is the way things are
headed with --porcelain, even if the name is backwards.

I agree that error messages should be localised either way- if you're
trying to parse an error message, something's always gone wrong.

Does anyone know how large of a non-english-speaking community git
currently has? Would this effort include adding localised git command
names or arguments?

It may also be worth mentioning that a git "commit", for example,
doesn't have anything (other than historical reasons) to do with the
English word "commit". A git commit is a git commit, and perhaps such
conceptual terms should best be left untranslated anyway. It would
certainly make it easier to answer questions in #git if people continued
to use the same terms everywhere. Just as a weak anecdotal argument,
when someone uses the term "revision" in #git, there's generally a lack
of understanding about what a "commit" is. "commit" means something very
specific in git, and I would hesitate to try to translate that into
another language as if it's just a synonym for "revision" or
"checkpoint", or "transaction", etc

-- 
-- Will