This is the mail archive of the
libc-locales@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
Re: [PATCH] en_CA, es_AR, es_ES: Define yesstr and nostr.
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Keld Simonsen <keld at keldix dot com>
- Cc: Petr Baudis <pasky at ucw dot cz>, libc-locales at sourceware dot org, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 09:53:23 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] en_CA, es_AR, es_ES: Define yesstr and nostr.
- References: <51619965 dot 9030600 at redhat dot com> <20130407210205 dot GX6137 at machine dot or dot cz> <5183A43F dot 7040505 at redhat dot com> <20130503134333 dot GA29133 at rap dot rap dot dk>
On 05/03/2013 09:43 AM, Keld Simonsen wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 07:49:19AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 04/07/2013 05:02 PM, Petr Baudis wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 12:05:57PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>> My feeling is that this is positive progress on missing data.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>
>>> I think it's fine, Acked-by: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>.
>>>
>>> Thank you for the verbose comments. :-)
>>
>> Checked in as is.
>>
>> We can handle the "uppercase" vs. "lowercase" first character
>> in yesstr/nostr as a distinct set of changes since they also
>> impact en_US.
>>
>> Right now I'm just trying to add yesstr and nostr to as many
>> locales as possible.
>
> Why not then do the new ones with lowercase, that would reduce the
> work later on.
It's minor work compared to coming up with the policy and providing
rationale for the policy.
Have you added any guideline with rationale on the wiki so I can
use that to educate future contributors?
A good place to add it would be:
http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Locales
Once in place I can do a pass of all en_* to make them match.
Cheers,
Carlos.