Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Leuven, E." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
so if people think that we should litter the reverted document with
ert just because we can, so be it. but at more conceptual level i
think that this is a perverse result of the possibility of ert.
I do not know what you are talking about, and therefore I think it is
a good idea to chime in :) I also think that the heavy use of ERT in
reversion is going too far.
What about this alternate idea: add a note in the text explaining
what got removed. Of course, this raises the problem of
localization...
Good idea but this should probably be optional. The corresponding ERT
might even be included in the note if it exists but the ERT reverting
code should not be mandatory IMHO. As long as the string is marked as
translated I don't see a problem.
Abdel.
