This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: GLIBC 2.23 Update Translations
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>
- Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 22:11:04 +0000
- Subject: Re: GLIBC 2.23 Update Translations
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56C621B3 dot 2080603 at linaro dot org> <20160218215100 dot GI7732 at vapier dot lan> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1602182154460 dot 21487 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20160218220616 dot GJ7732 at vapier dot lan>
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2016 21:56, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On 18 Feb 2016 17:55, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> > > > Due an overlook in the wiki release from my part I created the release tag
> > > > without updating both libc.pot and the translation po. So I am aiming the
> > > > correct translation update to 2.23.1. I also updated both on master and
> > > > already backported on the 2.23 branch.
> > > >
> > > > The question is: are there enough changes to warrant a 2.23.1 with
> > > > translation updates so people can use those tarballs?
> > >
> > > have tarballs been generated ? deleting/rewriting tags are generally
> > > harmless in git (unlike branches) because you don't really branch from
> > > a tag, and when you `git pull` it'll just force update.
> > I don't think git pull will update a tag that gets moved.
> i'm 99.9% sure it does
Not in my testing (unless you use the non-default --tags option to git
pull to force updates of existing tags).
Joseph S. Myers