Tx support for plural forms and other questions
kmilos at gmail.com
Sat Sep 26 11:51:56 UTC 2009
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Dimitris Glezos <dimitris at glezos.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Miloš Komarčević <kmilos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi peeps,
>> Hoping someone will be able to shed some light on the following. I
>> have asked Dan to support ngettext in setroubleshoot  and found
>> positive response and a fix already.
>> However, the POT generated by Tx differs to the one checked in by the
>> developer in Hg. So the questions are:
>> 1. Does Tx POT generation at all support extraction of ngettext
>> strings from an intltoolized project? If so, why doesn't it extract
>> them in this case?
> Transifex uses intltool-update under the hood to produce the new file.
> Maybe a version mismatch?
>> 2. Why does Tx even generate a POT file when there is one checked in?
>> Difficult to decide which takes precedence, I know. If the project is
>> intltoolized, then we can ask the developer not to check in the POT
>> any more, but it would then be nice if ngettext extraction worked...
> The developer can choose whether to use a static POT or intltool
> (dynamically generated POT). In the case of setroubleshoot, the chosen
> option is the latter. If the developer wants to produce the POT, we
> (he) can just switch the i18n method to use a static POT file.
> Hope this helps.
Thanks Dimitris, but to be honest, I was hoping someone could take a
closer look at the setroubleshoot setup and recent changes, as I
unfortunately just can't figure out the inner workings of Tx and
More information about the trans