Re: [HACKERS] Help text for pg_basebackup -R
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephen Frost 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 than an outdated native-language message.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/
Re: [HACKERS] Help text for pg_basebackup -R
Stephen Frost 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 than an outdated native-language message.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. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Help text for pg_basebackup -R
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera
> > 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=SLOTNAMEreplication 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] Help text for pg_basebackup -R
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera
> 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=SLOTNAMEreplication 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 Herrerahttps://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
Re: [HACKERS] Help text for pg_basebackup -R
On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera
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=SLOTNAMEreplication 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?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Re: [HACKERS] Help text for pg_basebackup -R
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> - " write recovery.conf after
> backup\n"));
> + " write recovery.conf for
> replication\n"));
> printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAMEreplication slot to use\n"));
LGTM.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://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
