8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update #23184

justin-curtis-lu · 2025-01-17T22:29:15Z

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

Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

JDK-8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update (Bug - P2)

Reviewers

Damon Nguyen (@DamonGuy - Committer) Review applies to 5ea5ddc9
Naoto Sato (@naotoj - Reviewer) Review applies to 5ea5ddc9
Joe Wang (@JoeWang-Java - Reviewer) Review applies to 5ea5ddc9
Severin Gehwolf (@jerboaa - Reviewer)
Alexey Semenyuk (@alexeysemenyukoracle - Reviewer) Review applies to 5ea5ddc9

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/23184/head:pull/23184
$ git checkout pull/23184

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/23184
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/23184/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 23184

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 23184

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23184.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

bridgekeeper · 2025-01-17T22:30:20Z

👋 Welcome back jlu! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

openjdk · 2025-01-17T22:31:13Z

@justin-curtis-lu This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update

Reviewed-by: sgehwolf, dnguyen, naoto, joehw, asemenyuk

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 69 new commits pushed to the master branch:

c00557f: 8345049: Remove the jmx.tabular.data.hash.map compatibility property
8b46db0: 8345045: Remove the jmx.remote.x.buffer.size JMX notification property
119899b: 8345048: Remove the jmx.extend.open.types compatibility property
89bfcb8: 8348308: Make fields of ListSelectionEvent final
17df515: 8348303: Remove repeated 'a' from ListSelectionEvent
337118d: 8348388: Incorrect copyright header in TestFluidAndNonFluid.java
3069e91: 8344969: Remove the jmx.mxbean.multiname compatibility property
c882160: 8344966: Remove the allowNonPublic MBean compatibility property
6032f6e: 8341696: C2: Non-fluid StringBuilder pattern bails out in OptoStringConcat
caa3c78: 8347965: (tz) Update Timezone Data to 2025a
... and 59 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/17e3df652feb2a0fb960cd235c0efc4b482731d6...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

openjdk · 2025-01-17T22:31:46Z

@justin-curtis-lu The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

compiler
core-libs
kulla

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.

mlbridge · 2025-01-17T22:34:44Z

Webrevs

01: Full - Incremental (cc8b23fb)
00: Full (5ea5ddc9)

DamonGuy · 2025-01-17T22:37:35Z

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties

-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


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.

Yes, see the other comment.

DamonGuy · 2025-01-17T22:38:16Z

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jmod/resources/jmod_de.properties

@@ -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.


I assume this is more evidence that the German differences are just updated translations for German?

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.

Makes sense. I agree then.

DamonGuy

File changes LGTM.

naotoj · 2025-01-17T23:06:15Z

Should the copyright years be 2025, unless they were published in 2024?

justin-curtis-lu · 2025-01-17T23:18:43Z

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.

DamonGuy · 2025-01-17T23:18:49Z

Should the copyright years be 2025, unless they were published in 2024?

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.

naotoj · 2025-01-17T23:53:06Z

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.

justin-curtis-lu · 2025-01-21T18:02:41Z

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.

While that has been my understanding as well, for L10n specifically we have always reflected the original English file year in the localized copyright. For example, I believe most (if not all) of the other files included in this PR have a 2024 copyright years, not just those .java XML files. I am fine if we make this switch, but it will be a departure from how we have normally done it for the L10n process.

naotoj

While that has been my understanding as well, for L10n specifically we have always reflected the original English file year in the localized copyright

Yes. I think it is probably time to assure it really is the case. Since we are following the procedure, I approve the changes.

JoeWang-Java

java.xml changes look good.

jerboaa

I only looked at the jlink changes which look fine to me. Fine to keep with/without the suggestion.

jerboaa · 2025-01-22T17:09:40Z

src/jdk.jlink/share/classes/jdk/tools/jlink/resources/jlink_de.properties

+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


Suggested change

err.no.module.path=--module-path-Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden

err.no.module.path=--module-path Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden

Fixed it in cc8b23f. The option reads incorrect with "-Option" appended, regardless of language rules.

alexeysemenyukoracle

jpackage changes look good.

jerboaa

jdk.jlink changes still good.

justin-curtis-lu · 2025-01-24T21:42:31Z

Thank you all for the reviews!
/integrate

openjdk · 2025-01-24T21:43:23Z

Going to push as commit dec9367.
Since your change was applied there have been 98 commits pushed to the master branch:

bef5f56: 8291027: Some of TimeZone methods marked 'synchronized' unnecessarily
8e8f800: 8344943: Mark not subclassable classes final in java.base exported classes
76f792b: 8348203: [JVMCI] Make eager JVMCI initialization observable in the debugger
909cef5: 8339891: Several sun/security/ssl/SSLSessionImpl/* tests override test.java.opts
56a1877: 8348170: Unnecessary Hashtable usage in CSS.styleConstantToCssMap
9768f60: 8345249: Apply some conservative cleanups in FileURLConnection
c5a69b6: 8331723: Serial: Remove the unused parameter of the method SerialHeap::gc_prologue
9c55e25: 8347981: RISC-V: Add Zfa zli imm loads
e20bd01: 8344361: Restore null return for invalid services from legacy providers
5a0bdd0: 8346890: AArch64: Type profile counters generate suboptimal code
... and 88 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/17e3df652feb2a0fb960cd235c0efc4b482731d6...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

openjdk · 2025-01-24T21:43:40Z

@justin-curtis-lu Pushed as commit dec9367.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

justin-curtis-lu · 2025-01-24T21:46:50Z

/backport jdk jdk24

openjdk · 2025-01-24T21:47:32Z

@justin-curtis-lu the backport was successfully created on the branch backport-justin-curtis-lu-dec93675-jdk24 in my personal fork of openjdk/jdk. To create a pull request with this backport targeting openjdk/jdk:jdk24, just click the following link:

➡️ Create pull request

The title of the pull request is automatically filled in correctly and below you find a suggestion for the pull request body:

Hi all,

This pull request contains a backport of commit dec93675 from the openjdk/jdk repository.

The commit being backported was authored by Justin Lu on 24 Jan 2025 and was reviewed by Severin Gehwolf, Damon Nguyen, Naoto Sato, Joe Wang and Alexey Semenyuk.

Thanks!

If you need to update the source branch of the pull then run the following commands in a local clone of your personal fork of openjdk/jdk:

$ git fetch https://github.com/openjdk-bots/jdk.git backport-justin-curtis-lu-dec93675-jdk24:backport-justin-curtis-lu-dec93675-jdk24
$ git checkout backport-justin-curtis-lu-dec93675-jdk24
# make changes
$ git add paths/to/changed/files
$ git commit --message 'Describe additional changes made'
$ git push https://github.com/openjdk-bots/jdk.git backport-justin-curtis-lu-dec93675-jdk24

init

Loading
Loading status checks…

5ea5ddc

openjdk bot added the rfr label Jan 17, 2025

openjdk bot added core-libs compiler kulla labels Jan 17, 2025

DamonGuy reviewed Jan 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

DamonGuy approved these changes Jan 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

naotoj approved these changes Jan 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready label Jan 21, 2025

JoeWang-Java approved these changes Jan 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

jerboaa approved these changes Jan 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

alexeysemenyukoracle approved these changes Jan 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

reflect jlink review

Loading
Loading status checks…

cc8b23f

openjdk bot removed the ready label Jan 22, 2025

jerboaa approved these changes Jan 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

openjdk bot added the ready label Jan 23, 2025

openjdk bot added the integrated label Jan 24, 2025

openjdk bot closed this Jan 24, 2025

openjdk bot removed the ready label Jan 24, 2025

openjdk bot removed the rfr label Jan 24, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update #23184

8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update #23184

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 17, 2025

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2025

mlbridge bot commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

DamonGuy Jan 17, 2025

justin-curtis-lu Jan 17, 2025

DamonGuy Jan 17, 2025

justin-curtis-lu Jan 17, 2025

DamonGuy Jan 17, 2025

DamonGuy left a comment

naotoj commented Jan 17, 2025

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 17, 2025

DamonGuy commented Jan 17, 2025

naotoj commented Jan 17, 2025

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 21, 2025

naotoj left a comment

JoeWang-Java left a comment

jerboaa left a comment

jerboaa Jan 22, 2025

justin-curtis-lu Jan 22, 2025

alexeysemenyukoracle left a comment

jerboaa left a comment

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 24, 2025

openjdk bot commented Jan 24, 2025

openjdk bot commented Jan 24, 2025

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 24, 2025

openjdk bot commented Jan 24, 2025

	err.no.module.path=--module-path-Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden
	err.no.module.path=--module-path Option muss mit --add-modules ALL-MODULE-PATH angegeben werden

8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update #23184

8347498: JDK 24 RDP2 L10n resource files update #23184

Conversation

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 17, 2025 • edited by openjdk bot Loading

Progress

Issue

Reviewers

Reviewing

bridgekeeper bot commented Jan 17, 2025

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2025 • edited Loading

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2025

mlbridge bot commented Jan 17, 2025 • edited Loading

Webrevs

DamonGuy Jan 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

justin-curtis-lu Jan 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DamonGuy Jan 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

justin-curtis-lu Jan 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DamonGuy Jan 17, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

DamonGuy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

naotoj commented Jan 17, 2025

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 17, 2025

DamonGuy commented Jan 17, 2025

naotoj commented Jan 17, 2025

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 21, 2025

naotoj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JoeWang-Java left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jerboaa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jerboaa Jan 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

justin-curtis-lu Jan 22, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alexeysemenyukoracle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jerboaa left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 24, 2025

openjdk bot commented Jan 24, 2025

openjdk bot commented Jan 24, 2025

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 24, 2025

openjdk bot commented Jan 24, 2025

justin-curtis-lu commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited by openjdk bot

Loading

openjdk bot commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mlbridge bot commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading