Re: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEx5qGNxXM8BHYH7LKAB_zTemTB7t4YRvxH_iAhgODCj+Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
Ответы |
Re: Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: