Re: [PATCH] Various documentation typo/grammar fixes

Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:

> All updated patches attached, per our previous discussion.
> Patches 1-2 are ready, 3 can be discarded unless someone else
> chimes in.

Patch 1 pushed, with each fix back-patched as far as the error
exists in supported releases.  I held off on patch 2 -- partly
because I spotted at least one case where things weren't quite
right, partly because there's so much I haven't had time to go over
it in sufficient detail, and partly because commas are omitted so
consistently where most style guides want them that I thought
someone might want to argue that this was an intentional style
choice and should be preserved.  I'm also not sure that it should
be back-patched as the outright errors were -- it does seem like
more of a style issue than most of the things in patch 1 were,
which included clear misspellings, accidentally repeated words, and
incorrect choices of indefinite articles.

The remaining error I mentioned above was an occurrence of a
parenthetical remark which started with "e.g.," and ended with
", etc.").  The Chicago Manual of Style says that you can use one
or the other, but using both is redundant and should be avoided.

> Do you think it's worth doing a run over developer documentation
> (README files) and code comments too, or is that a waste of time?

Some README files could use a lot of attention; I'm just not sure
that fixing a few misspelling, repeated words, or grammar errors
makes enough of a dent in what is needed to be worth it.

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company