| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | dan(at)coffeecode(dot)net, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes |
| Date: | 2012-09-12 12:23:50 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevEx5qGNxXM8BHYH7LKAB_zTemTB7t4YRvxH_iAhgODCj+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-09-12 12:47:19 | Re: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-09-12 12:00:31 | Re: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes |