On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 15:36, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@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 <mes...@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/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
