Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> > > printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> > > - " write recovery.conf
> > after backup\n"));
> > > + " write recovery.conf for
> > replication\n"));
> > > printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
> >
> > LGTM.
> >
> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
> translations, right? So we should make it head only?
We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
than an outdated native-language message.
Now, that's been argued in the context of a bug fix that introduces new
messages or changed an existing message for other reasons. I'm not sure
how strongly do we think it applies for a change that's *only* about
updating a message. I'm +0.5 on back-patching the change in this case.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
