[COMMITTED] Adjust language-code fields of LC_ADDRESS.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 10/24/2013 04:43 PM, Chris Leonard wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 10/24/2013 11:47 AM, Chris Leonard wrote:
>>> /Changelog
>>>
>>> 2013-10-24  Chris Leonard  <cjl@sugarlabs.org>
>>>
>>>     * locale/iso-639.def: Add Ligurian (lij)
>>
>> This is technically a distinct issue that should have gone in
>> as the first commit adding lij to the list of iso-639.def
>> langauges.
> 
> I discovered the misssing Ligurian entry in iso639.def in the course
> of adding language terms to the locale, it would have generated an
> error otherwise..  In future, I will break it out into separate
> commits.

Thank you. Splitting logical commits makes it easier for others
to review changes.
 
>>
>> After that commit you could then do the next change as another
>> distinct commit. I assume you wanted lij added to iso-639.def
>> because you were going to touch lij_IT and add some lij specific
>> terms and you wanted iso-639 up to date.
>>
>> It should still be two distinct commits since AFAICT they don't
>> depend on eachother, but are good to have both.
>>
>>> localedata/Changelog
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013-10-24  Chris Leonard  <cjl@sugarlabs.org>
>>>
>>>     * locales/ja_JP: Adjust language-code fields of LC_ADDRESS.
>>>     * locales/ka_GE: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/kk_KZ: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/kl_GL: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/kn_IN: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/ko_KR: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/kok_IN: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/ks_IN: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/ku_TR: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/kw_GB: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/ky_KG: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/lg_UG: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/lij_IT: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/lt_LT: Likewise.
>>>     * locales/lv_LV: Likewise.
>>
>> Is there a user visible bug that this is fixing?
> 
> These are all related to Jakub's e-mail from some time ago, there is
> not a bug on file.  The approach has been to fix the numerous issues
> he raised in a series of less-subjective changes (these are simple and
> straight look-up items without room for much discussion)

Sounds good, just double checking that we shouldn't search for and
close associated bugs.

Cheers,
Carlos.