Re: A slimmer PO header

[Ole Laursen]

> Ole Laursen wrote:
> > I understand the utility of the timestamps in the header
> > (POT-Creation-Date and PO-Revision-Date) back in day, it was a nice
> > touch, but today with version-control systems being everywhere, what
> > do you think about adding support for skipping them?
> > ...
> > In the dual-language projects I maintain the timestamps constantly
> > cause spurious conflicts.
>
> The issue with the version control systems is an important one; it will
> be addressed "soon" (in a few months).

OK, thanks Bruno!

> > Language-Team is also weird in today's world, and Last-Translator can
> > cause the same kind of trouble as the timestamps, but it's a bit
> > easier to just not fill it in.
>
> Certainly some projects organize their translators in a different way
> that the TP, GNOME, or KDE. So, if it's easier for the translator to
> not fill it in, let them do it like that. Where is the problem exactly?

Sorry, my explanation was incomplete. This is not a problem with
Emacs, but some other tools insist on filling them in - which makes
sense when they're always there. But if it is easy to get PO files
without them, it would probably be easier to make the tools understand
that they're optional.

For me, it would be ideal if I could opt to not have the fields
generated by xgettext and friends, and then bug/send patches to tool
authors to make the tools check for the existence of a field in the
header before deciding to fill it in. Does that make sense?


Ole