8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update #23184
Conversation
|
👋 Welcome back jlu! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into |
|
❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated. |
|
@justin-curtis-lu The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:
When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command. |
openjdk
bot
added
core-libs
| err.runtime.link.not.linkable.runtime=Dieses JDK unterstützt keine Assemblierung vom aktuellen Laufzeitimage | ||
| err.runtime.link.jdk.jlink.prohibited=Dieses JDK enthält keine als Pakete verpackten Module und kann nicht verwendet werden, um ein anderes Image mit dem Modul jdk.jlink zu erstellen | ||
| err.runtime.link.packaged.mods=Dieses JDK enthält keine als Pakete verpackten Module. "--keep-packaged-modules" wird nicht unterstützt | ||
| err.runtime.link.modified.file={0} wurde modifiziert | ||
| err.runtime.link.patched.module=Datei {0} nicht im Modulimage gefunden. "--patch-module" wird beim Verknüpfen aus dem Laufzeitimage nicht unterstützt | ||
| err.empty.module.path=leerer Modulpfad | ||
| err.runtime.link.not.linkable.runtime=Dieses JDK unterstützt keine Verknüpfung vom aktuellen Laufzeitimage | ||
| err.runtime.link.jdk.jlink.prohibited=Dieses JDK enthält keine verpackten Module und kann nicht verwendet werden, um ein anderes Image mit dem Modul jdk.jlink zu erstellen | ||
| err.runtime.link.packaged.mods=Dieses JDK enthält keine verpackten Module. "--keep-packaged-modules" wird nicht unterstützt | ||
| err.runtime.link.modified.file={0} wurde geändert | ||
| err.runtime.link.patched.module=jlink unterstützt keine Verknüpfung vom Laufzeitimage unter einer gepatchten Laufzeit mit --patch-module | ||
| err.no.module.path=--module-path-Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden | ||
| err.empty.module.path=Kein Modul im Modulpfad "{0}" mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH gefunden | ||
| err.limit.modules=--limit-modules nicht mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH zulässig |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see German has more being changed when compared to Japanese & Chinese. Are these updated translations for German specifically? I see no related change for the other 2 languages for say err.runtime.link.not.linkable.runtime.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, see the other comment.
| @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ main.opt.man-pages=Speicherort der Manpages | |||
| main.opt.target-platform=Zielplattform | |||
| main.opt.target-platform.arg=target-platform | |||
| main.opt.module-path=Modulpfad | |||
| main.opt.hash-modules=Berechnet und erfasst Hashes zur Bindung eines in ein Package integrierten Moduls an Module, die dem angegebenen <Regex-Muster> entsprechen und direkt oder indirekt davon abhängen. Die Hashes werden in der erstellten JMOD-Datei oder in einer JMOD- oder modularen JAR-Datei in dem Modulpfad erfasst, der im jmod-Hashbefehl angegeben ist. | |||
| main.opt.hash-modules=Berechnet und erfasst Hashes zur Bindung eines verpackten Moduls an Module, die dem angegebenen <Regex-Muster> entsprechen und direkt oder indirekt davon abhängen. Die Hashes werden in der erstellten JMOD-Datei oder in einer JMOD- oder modularen JAR-Datei in dem Modulpfad erfasst, der im jmod-Hashbefehl angegeben ist. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume this is more evidence that the German differences are just updated translations for German?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, there were standalone German translation updates. Some were also reverts to fixes we made last time for German translations specifically, as they were rejected by the translation team. In any case, I think it is probably best not to deviate from their translations unless they are incorrect.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense. I agree then.
|
Should the copyright years be 2025, unless they were published in 2024? |
I noticed that too. Those copyrights are automatically updated by the translation team. Since the English changes were made in 2024, it seems reasonable that the corresponding l10n changes also have a copyright year of 2024. Conceptually I'm treating it like a backport, where the copyright year should reflect the year of the original change, not the current year. But these are different cases of course, please let me know if I should change it to 2025, I am not fully sure in this scenario. |
I saw the same but forgot to mention it after looking up the original files to compare to German. I'm also not sure if this should be 2024 vs 2025. I'd assume 2024 since most of the files say "edited on Dec 2024", but not sure if it's based on the original file's date or this translated file. |
|
IANAL, but my understanding is that it reflects the year the last change was open to the public. It does not seem to matter from copyright point if the file is a translation of English one or not. |
Please review this PR which contains the l10n translations for between RDP1 and RDP2 for the JDK24 stabilization branch.
Note that these translations are only associated with changes made to the stabilization branch. This PR will not include any translations for changes since RDP1, that were not back-ported to the stabilization branch. Also note that while most changes here are associated with an English change, there were some standalone translation improvements.
Once this pull request is integrated, it will be back-ported to the jdk24 branch.
Progress
Issue
Reviewers
Reviewing
Using
gitCheckout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/23184/head:pull/23184$ git checkout pull/23184Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/23184$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/23184/headUsing Skara CLI tools
Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 23184View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 23184Using diff file
Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184.diff
Using Webrev
Link to Webrev Comment