Re: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:23:50PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> On Sep 12, 2012 2:00 PM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> >
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > "Kevin Grittner" wrote:
> > > Dan Scott wrote:
> > >>> I ran across a minor typo while reviewing the full-text search
> > >>> documentation. Attached is a patch to address the one usage of
> > >>> "lexems" in a sea of "lexemes".
> > >>
> > >> Applied to HEAD.
> > >>
> > > No back patch? Seems like a bugfix to me...
> >
> > I thought that "minor" changes to the docs were not back-patched.
> > Did I misunderstand that or is there an exception for spelling
> > corrections? I'm happy to follow any policy we have, but I guess I'm
> > not clear enough what that is.
>
> I don't think there is a well covering policy. I'd treat it like a user facing
> message in the code, for example. Would you back patch the same thing if it was
> in an ereport? If so, I'd back patch it in the docs. It's docs that people are
> going to be referring to for years to come.. And the effort is close to zero to
> back patch it. If it was more complex, I'd think twice about it.

Magnus, are you saying we don't backpatch wording improvements, but we
do backpatch spelling corrections?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +