On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> >> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> 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 than an outdated native-language message.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.
> Yeah, if the existing message text is actually wrong or misleading,
> we should back-patch.  I'm not sure I would do that if it's just a
> cosmetic improvement.  In this particular case, +1.

OK. Applied and backpatched.

 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Reply via email to