Thread: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes
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".
Attachment
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. -Kevin
<p dir="ltr"><br /> On Sep 12, 2012 2:52 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <<a href="mailto:Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov">Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > Dan Scott wrote:<br/> > > I ran across a minor typo while reviewing the full-text search<br /> > > documentation. Attachedis a patch to address the one usage of<br /> > > "lexems" in a sea of "lexemes".<br /> ><br /> > Appliedto HEAD.<br /> ><br /> No back patch? Seems like a bugfix to me... <p dir="ltr">/Magnus
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. -Kevin
<p dir="ltr"><br /> On Sep 12, 2012 2:00 PM, "Kevin Grittner" <<a href="mailto:Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov">Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > Magnus Hagander wrote:<br /> > > "Kevin Grittner" wrote:<br /> > > Dan Scott wrote:<br /> > >>> I ran acrossa minor typo while reviewing the full-text search<br /> > >>> documentation. Attached is a patch to addressthe one usage of<br /> > >>> "lexems" in a sea of "lexemes".<br /> > >><br /> > >> Appliedto HEAD.<br /> > >><br /> > > No back patch? Seems like a bugfix to me...<br /> ><br /> > I thoughtthat "minor" changes to the docs were not back-patched.<br /> > Did I misunderstand that or is there an exceptionfor spelling<br /> > corrections? I'm happy to follow any policy we have, but I guess I'm<br /> > not clearenough what that is.<br /><p dir="ltr">I don't think there is a well covering policy. I'd treat it like a user facingmessage in the code, for example. Would you back patch the same thing if it was in an ereport? If so, I'd back patchit in the docs. It's docs that people are going to be referring to for years to come.. And the effort is close to zeroto back patch it. If it was more complex, I'd think twice about it. <p dir="ltr">/Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: "Kevin Grittner" wrote: > 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. OK, done. Back-patched to 9.1 where the typo first appeared. -Kevin
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:23:50PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Sep 12, 2012 2:00 PM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.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@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 10:00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Magnus, are you saying we don't backpatch wording improvements, but we > do backpatch spelling corrections? You could argue that a spelling correction is a bug fix but a wording improvement is a new feature. (Unless the old wording is wildly confusing or inaccurate.)
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:06:15AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 10:00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Magnus, are you saying we don't backpatch wording improvements, but we > > do backpatch spelling corrections? > > You could argue that a spelling correction is a bug fix but a wording > improvement is a new feature. (Unless the old wording is wildly > confusing or inaccurate.) OK, that's what I thought. Just clarifying. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +