Subject: Re: [PATCH] l10n: allows to translate diff messages

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 02:18:42 +0200

On Tue, Jul 13 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> "Jordi Mas via GitGitGadget" <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] l10n: allows to translate diff messages
>
> "allow to translate" would be the right phrasing, but it is too
> vague to say "diff messages".  You are only marking 3 messages for
> translation when there are probably a handful more.  
>
> You need to explain which ones, not just vague "diff messages".
>
> I think you are focusing on the words on the "git diff --stat" and
> "git diff --shortstat" summary line, so
>
>     i18n: mark "git diff --[short]stat" summary for translation
>
> perhaps?  And remember, i18n is the act of making the code capable
> of being translated, while l10n is the act of actually translating
> what i18n prepared into a particular language.  Here, i18n is more
> appropriate.

What i18n v.s. l10n means is quite the side-discussion, I have not heard
it used like this before, but rather as e.g. defined at :
https://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-i18n

I.e. in git.git's case that all our gettext-ization would fall under
i18n, but l10n are generally a step beyond that, e.g. if "git status"
output entries were sorted by locale, fsck and other progress.c users
used localized numeric formatting etc.

IOW I agree that i18n is more appropriate here, I just hadn't heard
i18n/l10n used in the way that you describe.