Re: [PATCH 000/160] [PULL] Update ab/i18n (again)

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 07:09, Michael J Gruber
[off-list ref] wrote:

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason venit, vidit, dixit 20.09.2010 22:37:
Would it be possible to split the infrastructure part from the actual
translations, i.e. have two or more dependent branches (which is
probably easier than reordering on a single branch)?

I know at least one locale where we're actually in the early stages of a
fundamental discussion about translation principles. Blocking the whole
series because of that makes no sense.

Also, the set of reviewers for infrastructure parts will be quite
different from that for individual translations.

Firstly I'm hoping this gets merged soon so this all becomes a
non-issue.

But having multiple branches would be harder for me, I used to have
three branches: infrastructure, gettextize and translations. Rebasing
all of those on top of each other and testing each of them was a PITA,
so I folded things back into one huge series.

But I don't think any of this is a problem for translators, they just
have to pull down any version of the series and start cracking at
"make pot && msginit ...". Maybe that POT file is *slightly* out of
date, but the translation strings themselves are really stable at this
point, so that's always going to be <1-2% of the translation that
needs to be fixed up & unfuzzied.

So just submit translations, maybe they'll make it as part of the
initial ab/i18n merge and maybe they won't.