At Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:07:02 +0000, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote in > 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.
+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
