Re: String additions to 'gtk+.gtk-3-16'

[Alexandre Franke <alexandre franke gmail com>]

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Alexandre Franke
<alexandre franke gmail com> wrote:
> Hi Matthias,

Hello again,

> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 5:51 PM, GNOME Status Pages <noreply gnome org> wrote:
> > There have been following string additions to module 'gtk+.gtk-3-16':
> >
> > + "Not implemented on OS X"
>
> https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/commit/?h=gtk-3-16&id=09408aca1efd08c1763a31b4b941175ab187612b
> authored by Philip Chimento and committed by you, introduced this new
> string. We are not happy with this because:
> * it breaks string freeze
> * it has been done right before tagging 3.16.3 which means that this
> release ships with the untranslated string and we had no way to
> prevent it
> * we weren't even warned about it
>
> Granted this is an error message and should be less exposed than a
> regular message, especially since it's only for Mac OS X which has a
> smaller user base, but this isn't an excuse.
>
> What is your plan now? Asking for an exception? Reverting (I guess
> not)? Do you intend to ever release a 3.16.4 or would translations
> efforts be wasted?

So today I had another look at stats over at Damned lies and noticed
GTK+ was again at 100% in French for 3.16. I was a bit surprised since
I didn't get an answer to my previous email with the above questions,
so I went to the git repository to see how you solved the issue.
Sadly, what I saw was this commit:
https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/commit/?h=gtk-3-16&id=c0f0874cf972526bf0fb0e629329f7249abe91e0

Unfortunately, unmarking the string doesn't solve the issue at all. If
anything, it makes things even worse because now we don't even have a
way to translate the message. Also it still breaking the freeze.

As I said before, I understand that the probability of anyone seeing
this string is ridiculously small. To be clear, if you had just said
you would like an exception for it, given the context I would have
given my +1 and I'm pretty sure someone would have given the second
approval.

I would really appreciate if you could confirm you intend to keep the
string in there (and thus ask for an exception), as well as answer my
question about a future 3.16.4.

Regards,

-- 
Alexandre Franke