Thread: Read-only vs read only vs readonly
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? 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? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Attachment
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
At Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:07:02 +0000, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote in > 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. +1 for both. As a translator, it seems that that kind of changes are usual. Many changes about full-stops, spacings, capitalizing and so happen especially at near-release season like now. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 8:10 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:07:02 +0000, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote in > > 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. > > +1 for both. As a translator, it seems that that kind of changes are > usual. Many changes about full-stops, spacings, capitalizing and so > happen especially at near-release season like now. Thanks for the input. I've applied this and back-patched to 14 since it's not out yet and there is translation still do be done. I didn't backpatch it further back than that to avoid the need for translation updates there. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/