Thread: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Minor typo in the source repository documentation
Hello,
I found a typo while reading the source repository documentation:
Attached patch fixes it.
Cheers
Martin Mai
Attachment
Martin Mai <mrkanister1024@gmail.com> writes: > I found a typo while reading the source repository documentation: > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sourcerepo.html Hm, I dunno, I like the existing wording better than yours. I agree that it's a bit unclear that the antecedent of "they" is meant to be the tools not the files; but this phraseology seems to make the files be the active agents, which is just weird. regards, tom lane
Hello Tom,
thanks for the clarification. The sentence felt a little bumpy to me,
but I am native German speaker, so maybe it is just me then.
Since "they" means the tools, would changing
... the files they are used to build are included in the tarball.
to
... the files they use to build [it] are included in the tarball.
convey the intended meaning more clearly?
If not, that is fine and I am out of your hair :)
Thanks for your time!
Cheers
Martin Mai
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Martin Mai <mrkanister1024@gmail.com> writes:
> I found a typo while reading the source repository documentation:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/sourcerepo. html
Hm, I dunno, I like the existing wording better than yours. I agree
that it's a bit unclear that the antecedent of "they" is meant to be
the tools not the files; but this phraseology seems to make the files
be the active agents, which is just weird.
regards, tom lane
Oh, now I think I got it...
The tools are not required to build from distribution tarball, because
the files that are normally build by the tools, are already included
in the tarball.
Realizing that, I agree with you that the current wording is correct
and my second suggestion would be as wrong as my first.
My bad.
Cheers
Martin Mai
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Minor typo in the source repository documentation
From
Pantelis Theodosiou
Date:
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Martin Mai <mrkanister1024@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Tom,thanks for the clarification. The sentence felt a little bumpy to me,but I am native German speaker, so maybe it is just me then.Since "they" means the tools, would changing... the files they are used to build are included in the tarball.to... the files they use to build [it] are included in the tarball.convey the intended meaning more clearly?
Perhaps:
.. since the necessary files are included in the tarball.
.. since the necessary files are included in the tarball.
Pantelis Theodosiou <ypercube@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Martin Mai <mrkanister1024@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since "they" means the tools, would changing
>> ... the files they are used to build are included in the tarball.
>> to
>> ... the files they use to build [it] are included in the tarball.
>> convey the intended meaning more clearly?
> Perhaps:
> .. since the necessary files are included in the tarball.
I think that might give the impression that we'd bundled Perl et al
into the tarball :-(
I was considering changing "the files they are used to build"
to "the files that these tools are used to build". I think the
main problem is just misunderstanding which things "they" means,
and that should fix it.
regards, tom lane
+1
Just after writing my last message it clicked and I understood that the
current wording is correct. Your suggestion makes it clearer, though.
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
I was considering changing "the files they are used to build"
to "the files that these tools are used to build". I think the
main problem is just misunderstanding which things "they" means,
and that should fix it.
Martin Mai <mrkanister1024@gmail.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I was considering changing "the files they are used to build"
>> to "the files that these tools are used to build". I think the
>> main problem is just misunderstanding which things "they" means,
>> and that should fix it.
> +1
> Just after writing my last message it clicked and I understood that the
> current wording is correct. Your suggestion makes it clearer, though.
Done that way. Thanks for the suggestion!
regards, tom lane