Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 22:20, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> A better way might be that translators simply work on a clone of the
>> source repository, which is then merged (as in, git merge) at release
>> time. �There are some issues with that to figure out, but it sounds like
>> the obviously right thing, from an interface point of view.
> I don't think we want to track every single translation update as
> commits in the main repository - we don't do that for non-translation
> stuff... If it's a squash-merge, that's a different thing, of
> course...
> Other than that, yes, keeping translations in git branches seems like
> a good interface.
My recollection is that the current setup was created mainly so that
translators wouldn't need to be given commit privileges on the main
repo. Giving them a separate repo to work in might be all right, but
of course whoever does the merges would have to be careful to only
accept changes made to the .po files and not anything else.
regards, tom lane
