Quoting Christian Perrier (email@example.com): > Quoting Frans Pop (firstname.lastname@example.org): > > General question. Should the ATOMIC_COMMITS option maybe just be dropped? > > I'm not sure why you'd want to use it and dropping it would significantly > > improve the readability of the code. > > I was tempted to remove this, indeed. That option was added at the > very beginning of the development of that script to keep the > possibility of working this way in case some conflicts problems arose. I'm even tempted to remove the atomic update feature that runs "svn up" before each change to a file. This has never been used, indeed. It was planned to be used as a more secure method in case a given file (mostly debian/po/*.po from individual packages) is updated by a maintainer while I'm running l10n-sync. Practically, such cases nearly never happened and I just solved them by hand when they happened. The switch could only be useful if I decide to *always* use it in automated runs which is currently not planned.
Description: Digital signature