On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 06:28:15PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Uh, I am always debating how important it is to backpatck vs the churn
> we require of translations of our docs. In this case, it didn't seem
> worthwhile to have all of those translations try to deal with this
> change for all those back branches.
> If it's a clean backpatch I'd say it is -- people who are using PostgreSQL 9.6
> will be reading the documentation for 9.6 etc, so they will not know about the
> fix then.
>
> If it's not a clean backpatch I can certainly see considering it, but if it's
> not a lot of effort then I'd say it's definitely worth it.
>
> I really don't think considerations for translators of the *docs* are an issue
> here. If you don't backpatch it, then nobody gets the fix. If you backpatch it,
> then English readers do get the fix, and translated docs readers *might* get
> the fix, depending on how they are maintained. It's not like translatable
> strings where if they change in a backbranch they will revert to English unless
> the translation is updated -- for the docs, they just don't get the fix.
My logic is that the more we backpatch, the less likely translators are
going to be to keep their docs up-to-date with minor releases since the
minor release diff is larger and contains more items that aren't
_required_ for correctness.
I looked at this patch and thought it was more a stylistic item rather
than a correction. Is that right?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +