I don't know why it was considered bad (and had thought it was simply never reviewed), but I am happy to review such patches as i18n maintainer (including in Stage 3 - they are clearly bug fixes) if the front-end maintainers don't reject them. However, I think they would need splitting up for review.
Yes, of course. Unfortunately I don't have much time for submitting patches at all... :-( I'll take note though of your kind offer to review this kind of patch.
I'm not convinced by the cp-i18n.c approach, however, although there may be cases where it's necessary.
I see. In fact, the main problem was about the cp-i18n.c file in the old review (I *think* by Geoff Keating, but I'm not sure).
My preference would be to use full sentences if at all possible (see the WARN_FOR_ASSIGNMENT macro in the C front end and other diagnostics in convert_for_assignment, for example, or readonly_error for another such case).
Yes, I know about them. I would also prefer to have full sentences when possible.
Paolo
