On 9/2/21, 11:30 AM, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> I had a customer point out to me that we're inconsistent in how we
> spell read-only. Turns out we're not as inconsistent as I initially
> thought :), but that they did manage to spot the one actual log
> message we have that writes it differently than everything else -- but
> that broke their grepping...
>
> Almost everywhere we use read-only. Attached patch changes the one log
> message where we didn't, as well as a few places in the docs for it. I
> did not bother with things like comments in the code.
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. Is it worth fixing? Or just silly nitpicking?
It seems entirely reasonable to me to consistently use "read-only" in
the log messages and documentation.
> 2. What about translations? This string exists in translations --
> should we just "fix" it there, without touching the translated string?
> Or try to fix both? Or leave it for the translators who will get a
> diff on it?
I don't have a strong opinion, but if I had to choose, I would say to
leave it to the translators to decide.
Nathan
