Subject: Re: [PATCH de.po 5/5] de.po: collection of suggestions

From: Thomas Rast <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 09:42:06 +0200

Christian Stimming <[email-masked]> writes:

> As one of the earlier translators: I agree with most of those as well. Thanks 
> a lot. However, one small remark:
>
> Am Mittwoch, 2. Mai 2012, 15:49:27 schrieb Thomas Rast:
>> @@ -676,11 +675,11 @@ msgstr "hinter "
>> 
>>  #: wt-status.c:908 wt-status.c:911
>>  msgid "ahead "
>> -msgstr "über "
>> +msgstr "weiter: "
>> 
>>  #: wt-status.c:913
>>  msgid ", behind "
>> -msgstr ", hinter "
>> +msgstr ", zurückgefallen "
>> 
>>  #: builtin/add.c:62
>>  #, c-format
>> @@ -903,12 +902,12 @@ msgstr "Zweig '%s' zeigt auf keine Version"
>>  #: builtin/branch.c:396
>>  #, c-format
>>  msgid "behind %d] "
>> -msgstr "hinter %d] "
>> +msgstr "%d hinterher] "
>> 
>>  #: builtin/branch.c:398
>>  #, c-format
>>  msgid "ahead %d] "
>> -msgstr "vor %d] "
>> +msgstr "%d voraus] "
>
> In the above hunk, you said "ahead = weiter" and "behind = zurückgefallen", 
> but now you say "ahead = voraus" and "behind = hinterher". Is it helpful to 
> use two different translations, or shouldn't those rather be chosen 
> identically? The second set sounds somewhat better to me, but the more 
> important question is whether both hunks should use the same translations.

Yeah, sorry about that.  The whole thing is a mess because of the lego
going on.  It would probably be better to first patch the code into
shape so that it builds the displays in one step, and then translate
that.  As it stands, it's very hard to translate because wt-status.c
does not even let you reposition the number.

-- 
Thomas Rast
trast@{inf,student}.ethz.ch