Actually, would have been a good opportunity to move the strings from public-gui-other.pot to a new translation resource, so that strings like 2000 Food. are not in the same pot as the majority of the GUI. Too bad I didn't think of that sooner. (Though I'm not sure whether the transifex webinterface offers previous similar translations of different resources.)

(Reviewed by: <committer> always seemed redundant to me. At least I would recommend everyone to not commit others work that they didn't review, even if there is someone else who reviewed it)

In rP22137#32598, @elexis wrote:

(Reviewed by: <committer> always seemed redundant to me.

I think a possible use-case of the Reviewed By is when someone made a review remotely from phabricator, like via IRC/voice chat/live (for example on conference).

In rP22137#32609, @vladislavbelov wrote:

(Reviewed by: <committer> always seemed redundant to me.

I think a possible use-case of the Reviewed By is when someone made a review remotely from phabricator, like via IRC/voice chat/live (for example on conference).

Reviewed By has the use case that one can grep it, but I was more refering to Reviewed By: <comitter>, where <comitter> is the person that committed it.
If someone commits something, he should have reviewed it, so stating it should be redundant, or we allow people to commit patches they didn't review, which I would advise strongly against.
I think it happened only once (person1 author, person 2 reviewer, person 3 committed without review), and it was instant karma.

In rP22137#32613, @elexis wrote:

Reviewed By has the use case that one can grep it, but I was more refering to Reviewed By: <comitter>, where <comitter> is the person that committed it.

Oh, I missed that part, sorry. I understood it incorrectly.

If someone commits something, he should have reviewed it, so stating it should be redundant, or we allow people to commit patches they didn't review, which I would advise strongly against.
I think it happened only once (person1 author, person 2 reviewer, person 3 committed without review), and it was instant karma.

I absolutely agree.

I listed myself, because I thought not listing myself leaves the impression I didn't review the patch. But you are right, committing implies a review by the committer, so listing myself is redundant.

In rP22137#32616, @Imarok wrote:

I listed myself, because I thought not listing myself leaves the impression I didn't review the patch.

It would mean that, if we were to allow commits without the committer reviewing himself. We just haven't done it so far, but there were proposals to do it.
I guess it's not clear to the reader which of the two policies we have, so one could also argue to always mention it.
Since "Reviewed By" means something to different to the different reviewers, it's a bit arbitrary anyhow.