[MPlayer-dev-eng] printf -> mp_msg conversion (etc.), first patches

[Attila Kinali]

On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 12:19:13PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> I've been wondering if you'd get around to this. ^_^

Sure, it took time but i'm working on it :)

> >Leave the MSGTRs as they are. If somebody cares he would have spoken
> >up until now.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean, don't change the
> MSGTRs in CVS at all, or don't change the ones in my patch?
> 
> On the former, someone did speak up, on the DOCS list; that's why I
> started changing them in the first place.
> 
> On the latter, Rich *did* speak up, he just wasn't specific enough. For
> that matter, it's possible that someone else might have objections but
> have not noticed because this has been lying here essentially dead...

I meant the later. Yes, Rich wasnt really specific and nobody else
complained. Beside, Rich is on vacation, thus he cannot complain
at the moment ;)


> >One issue i've seen is, that you changed MSGTR_Exiting to 
> >MSGTR_ExitingHow, which is actualy a good thing[tm], but you should
> >repeat that change everywhere where MSGTR_Exiting is used otherwise
> >mplayer will segfault.
> 
> I believe I did. If memory serves, MSGTR_Exiting was used in exactly one
> place, in mplayer.c - for which a patch was included. A quick grep
> through current CVS confirms this.
> 
> In any case, I believe I attempted to compile my working tree after
> making the changes (mainly to check for typos), and it went through with
> no problems. Wouldn't the missing symbol (MSGTR_Exiting) cause a problem
> at compile time?

yes, but dont forget the translations in help/
Those define MSGTR_Exiting too.

> >Same here, this printf->mp_msg work should be finished. mplayer
> >defintily needs more overall consistency. To much stuff is still done
> >the way how it was 3 years ago, which is bad.
> 
> I just want to be able to contribute, and this is one thing which A)
> needs doing, B) I can certainly do, and C) no one else seems interested
> in working on. Which is why it's a little frustrating to be unable to
> proceed...

Gambatte! :)

> >Hmm.. i'd say go on with the one patch aproach, no need to make it
> >overcomplicated.
> 
> By this, do you mean to keep both the MSGTR changes and the printf
> changes in the same patch? I wasn't sure about this in the first place,
> and when I brought it up Rich agreed that they should be separate. The
> only other option I see is the one quoted above, which is a little bit
> clunky as it involves a wait between patches.

Do it in one patch. As far as i am concerned, those two parts
are related.

 
 			Attila Kinali