From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 56258 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2017 21:36:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 56109 invoked by uid 89); 9 Mar 2017 21:36:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*F:D*pfeifer.com, Hx-languages-length:1871, brand, risk X-HELO: ainaz.pair.com Received: from ainaz.pair.com (HELO ainaz.pair.com) (209.68.2.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:37 +0000 Received: from anthias.dhcp.nue.suse.com (nat.nue.novell.com [195.135.221.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 937DD3F5E3; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 16:36:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 21:36:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: David Malcolm cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, roland.illig@gmx.de, Joseph Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Various i18n fixes (and questions) In-Reply-To: <1489081529-22256-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <1489081529-22256-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg00469.txt.bz2 On Thu, 9 Mar 2017, David Malcolm wrote: > However, we're deep in stage 4 of the development cycle. Looking at > our development plan > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html > it's not clear to me how such changes fit into our schedule: the plan > seems to make no mention of how i18n and translation fit in to the > stages (it talks about bugs and documentation, but not about translatable > strings). A key reason documentation changes of all sorts are fine is that there is very little risk for them to break the build on some platform, but not others. (Of course different versions of makeinfo may run into different things, but that, too, will be noticed and can be fixed quickly. And does not happen all that often.) So the question I'd ask: What is the risk of such changes breaking things? If it's not big, probably makes sense to just proceed with your changes. > Do we have a "string freeze" in our schedule? i.e. is there a point > at which we avoid changing strings to avoid disrupting things for > translators? I am not aware of one, though I'd say latest after the branch point we probably should be careful in not changing things too much (unless something is really broken)? (GCC is not exactly for end users, and most people using it, in particular a brand new release, will understand English when push comes to shove, which is what's shown if a message is not translated, correct?) > Also, from a developer POV, when should we regenerate and check-in > the .pot files? The rules for submitting patches: > https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html > and for committing them: > https://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html > seem to make no mention of gettext and .pot files. That's a good point. Joseph, can you help fill that in? (If you give me a bit of text, I can take care of HTMLifying and adding it.) Gerald