On 9/2/21, 11:30 AM, "Magnus Hagander" <mag...@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
