qt-copy (or kde-qt) patches cleanup

[Albert Astals Cid]

A Dimecres, 30 de setembre de 2009, Oswald Buddenhagen va escriure:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:22:47PM +0200, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > Le Wednesday 30 September 2009, Albert Astals Cid a écrit :
> > > >  * 0289-context-for-shortcuts-tr
> > > > http://qt.gitorious.org/+kde-developers/qt/kde-qt/commit/9eb3560cfd5c
> > > >d0bc
> > > >
> > > >  Add context to tr calls in QShortcut
> > > >
> > > > I haven't seen any merge request on that. Albert, please do one.
> > >
> > > I made a merge request, Ossi rejected it and i closed it
> >
> > Why has it been rejected?  And in that case why should we keep it in
> > kde-qt?
> 
> the problem here is qt's "incompatible" concept of automatic contexts.
> qt's translator relies on it and thus does not need additional
> disambiguations. but kde's "tr() brigde" discards the context
> information and thus screws itself over. i.e., basically this is a hack,
> and it sets a precedent for adding more clutter to qt's code to support
> kde's non-compliant QTranslator reimplementation.

No, it's not a hack, it is giving more context where it is needed, are you 
sure a translator is going to know how the heck to translate "+"? or "Shift"?

You KNOW the code, translators do not and they *NEED* context, the fact that 
KDE also needs it to disambiguate the text should not matter to you at all, 
yet you are forcing the context to be in a different way just for the sake of 
not pleasing us.

> 
> fwiw, in the longer term i'd like to see qt switch to something which is
> closer to ki18n() + KUIT, but so far there have been no takers.

Our code is LGPL, use it if you want.

> > > > Why the translations doesn't go upstreams?
> > >
> > > Two reasons:
> > >  * We use .po translations, you do not.
> 
> this point is nowadays kinda ... pointless. :D

Again you show how much you fail to understand translators, our translators 
*KNOW* how to work with .po files and have no idea how to work with .ts files. 
Do you think we have a complex system to move from docbook to po and then back 
to docbook for no reason?

> 
> > >  * We accept LGPL translations, you do not.
> 
> well, quite frankly, that's *the* roadblock to qt being a truly open
> project. not much the poor hacker-trolls can do about it.

We agree here.

> > > We can discuss about this if you want, it is obvious *you* would
> > > benefit tremendously from the KDE translators,
> > >
> > > but i'm not sure we can reach an agreement.
> 
> i'm fairly sure there won't be an agreement with "the kde translators",
> but individual teams might very well agree to sign over their souls ...
> errm ... whatever. :D

Right, that still doesn't help KDE, we need to keep providing our own 
translations until Qt provides a bigger number of translations.

> > > I'm on IRC so if you feel like chatting, just /query me
> >
> > I know very few about translations, and even less about legal.
> > I'll ask our (qt) legal for a possible cooperation on this.
> 
> alexandra is supposed to get something going in that direction.
> and anyway - you know where to find me. :)

Yeah i do, just no idea what i should be talking about to you :D

Albert