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older branches, so this update would be caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better than an outdated native-language message.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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers