On 03/17/2016 02:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> On 03/17/2016 01:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> +1 what? Are you saying this patch is good? I don't think it is: the
>>> previous sentence is written in third person, and the following ones are
>>> currently in third person, but the patch changes the following sentences
>>> to first person without changing the first one to match. If he or she
>>> (or they) want this updated, I think we should at least make an effort
>>> of keeping it as consistent as it is today.
>
>> The wording was Meh to begin with. If you would like me to spend some
>> time cleaning up the paragraph as a whole, I will do that.
>
> I think it's important that we fix these issues in a way that doesn't
> degrade the readability of the prose,
I don't disagree.
> and that doesn't call attention
> to itself as "hey, we're being so politically correct!". We're trying
> to convey technical information in a way that does not distract the
> reader from the technical content. Sexist language is a distraction
> for some, in-your-face non-sexism (such as made-up pronouns) is a
> distraction for others, bad or awkward grammar is a distraction for yet
> others.
>
> I also concur with Alvaro that fixing these issues one para at a time
> is pretty inefficient.
How else are we going to do it? If we use sed, we are basically going to
end up with the "hey, we're being so politically correct!" issue. The
only other way I can think to fix it is to fix it as we come across it.
If you are in a file and see the gender issue, just fix it as part of
the patch you are working on.
JD
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
