* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > 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 than an outdated native-language message.
That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part. Of course, I'm not a translation-using user, but I have heard from people when I've spoken in other countries that a correct english message is better than outdated native-language messages, and further, that having the English message makes it easier to get Google results. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature