Re: [Nano-devel] updates (mostly bugfixes)

[David Lawrence Ramsey]

Jordi Mallach wrote:

<snip>

>Ok, this is great. While 1.3.6 appears to be quite good, the first
>comment our Chinese translator made about this version was that topwin
>was fucked. I see there are a few more utf-8 related fixes below, so
>releasing 1.3.7 is good so distros like Gentoo which are using 1.3 can
>have a more-stable-than-usual 1.3 release to play with.
>
>I will upload 1.3 to unstable as soon as Debian Sarge freezes. This
>apparently is going to happen RSN (famous last words, but anyway)...

Oh good.  Speaking of the Chinese translation, though, when I try to
build current CVS with NLS support, I get the following errors when the
build process reaches zh_TW.po:

zh_TW.po:20: format specifications in 'msgid' and 'msgstr[0]' for
argument 1 are not the same

zh_TW.po:26: format specifications in 'msgid' and 'msgstr[0]' for
argument 1 are not the same

zh_TW.po:32: format specifications in 'msgid' and 'msgstr[0]' for
argument 1 are not the same

zh_TW.po:38: format specifications in 'msgid' and 'msgstr[0]' for
argument 1 are not the same

zh_TW.po:1511: format specifications in 'msgid' and 'msgstr[0]' for
argument 1 are not the same

<snip>

>Ok, I don't know who's more pedantic... gcc or you :)

I guess I'm just paranoid when it comes to avoiding warnings.

>While this kind of change is not-so-nice for translators (it's
>difficult to find differences of just a character or one word in long
>texts like these), this time it's cool because it means splitting the
>help texts further, which makes it easier for us in the long term.

That's good too.  In any case, I shouldn't have to make a change like
this again.

>I think I might go ahead and do the FAQ.html -> FAQ.xml conversion this
>weekend or more probably next week. I hate seeing that TODO item for
>such a long time in the list, more when it was my proposal... :) After
>that, there would be searching for filenames in the file browser.
>
>I don't know how close or far away you guys think we are from
>1.3.99pre1, but I think this is looking good. I would surely be happy
>with postponing that feature if needed...

Unless I get inspired regarding how to actually do it, I wouldn't mind
postponing it either.  As for 1.3.99pre1, I'd like to deal with a few
other design issues before releasing it (e.g. the file browser code
needs to look at the shortcut list when necessary instead of having all
of its key values hardcoded, and the history code is rather messy and
needs to be cleaned up a bit), which I plan on getting to as soon as I
can.