This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 0/7] Various i18n fixes (and questions)
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <roland dot illig at gmx dot de>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 00:38:13 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Various i18n fixes (and questions)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1489081529-22256-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm@redhat.com>
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).
>
> 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?
We don't have a string freeze; these strings are functionally considered
much like documentation.
> 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.
>
> Looking in libcpp/po/ChangeLog and gcc/po/ChangeLog I see that
> Joseph [CCed] seems to regularly commit regenerated copies of the
> .pot files; do we have a policy about this?
See translation.html.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com