On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 15:36, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mar jun 21 07:36:05 -0400 2011:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:20, Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 04:44:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > IIRC this is exactly what git submodules are for. We could do a git archive
>> > only for translations as a submodule for our main git. That way translators
>> > would only clone the translation git, while we still have the translations in
>> > the source tree in the main git. At least this is how I think it works.
>>
>> AFAIK (but I could be wrong), git submodules requires the files to be
>> in *one* subdirectory. Our .po files are distributed all across the
>> backend. So we'd have to make (and backpatch) som rather large changes
>> in how these things are built in order to use that.
>
> If git submodules are so cool that we still want to use them, maybe we
> still can -- can a submodule be submodule of more than one module? If
> so, we could create one submodule for each subdir that the translations
> are stored in (about 20 currently), and then have a pgtranslation
> meta-project that binds them all together as submodules.
Can you? Yes. But I doubt that would be very convenient to work with
that many submodules in general. If that's what we're looking at, what
we have now seems a lot more convenient.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
