* Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
> > 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=SLOTNAME replication 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 than an outdated native-language message.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outdated native-language messages, and further, that having the English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
