Re: [PATCH] Various documentation typo/grammar fixes
От | David G Johnston |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Various documentation typo/grammar fixes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1409435043793-5817040.post@n5.nabble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Various documentation typo/grammar fixes (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-docs |
Tom Lane-2 wrote > Kevin Grittner < > kgrittn@ > > writes: >> 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 would argue against applying patch 2 at all. I think it's what > John McIntyre (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/language-blog/) > would call peeverism. If there are any places where the extra > commas/periods actually add anything to clarity, then sure, change > those places --- but doing it only because some style guide tells > you to is not the way to approach the issue. We're writing English > not C code here, and so there is no single standard of correctness. Writing C code, aside from purely syntactic concerns, does not abide by a single standard of style correctness either yet this project does have a style guide that is to be adhered to. I do not think it to be a bad thing to accept a style guide as reference for the documentation as well. My main objections are: 1) we are simply treating symptoms 2) we are introducing a decent amount of not-meaning-enhancing change But if one is going to adopt a lassiez-faire attitude then whether or not patch 2 (and 3) is applied should make little difference. And given the surgical nature of the update in question the commit history of the documentation is practically unaffected. As a matter of internal consistency, and also for adherence to "best practices", I'd vote to apply all three patches once fully reviewed - though by the same logic above if we miss a few items the overall impact on the qualify of the documentation will still be positive and the incorrect locations will likely still be understandable. I don't expect writers to be able to keep straight all of the style rules that we'd like to try and adhere to but having good existing documentation will make it more likely for new content to conform. The goal would be to let them focus on writing but then have some kind of editing process - which is what is going on now - to aid in polishing the final publication. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/PATCH-Various-documentation-typo-grammar-fixes-tp5816078p5817040.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - docs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: