2007/9/13, Jeremy Katz <katzj(a)redhat.com>:
While the script "works", I wouldn't go so far as to
say it works great.
Especially from the point of view of a maintainer.
The automerge currently ends up doing one commit per update which is
pretty annoying from the perspective of looking at the commit history of
the project. With CVS, it matters slightly less since revision history
is only really per-file, but with a sane SCM, having 50 changesets in a
row that are "automerge translations" is going to be a quick way to
making a lot of people unhappy.
And really, the automerges probably shouldn't even be committed. They
are zero difference as far as the output .mo file is concerned which
means that the changes are a lot of noise as far as the source control
is concerned :/
Damn !
You're right about this.
I haven't thought about it.
As a programmer I use CVS revision history and it is important to me.
Other ideas to make transtators life easier ?
Domingo Becker (es)