On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I think it's important that we fix these issues in a way that doesn't > degrade the readability of the prose, and that doesn't call attention > to itself as "hey, we're being so politically correct!". We're trying > to convey technical information in a way that does not distract the > reader from the technical content. Sexist language is a distraction > for some, in-your-face non-sexism (such as made-up pronouns) is a > distraction for others, bad or awkward grammar is a distraction for yet > others. It's not that easy to write prose that manages not to call > attention to itself in any of these ways. But that's what we need to > do, and s/xxx/yyy/g editing that's only thinking about one of these > concerns is unlikely to get us there. +1 > I also concur with Alvaro that fixing these issues one para at a time > is pretty inefficient. A grep with a quick skim of the results to exclude references to particular people who are mentioned by name and then referred to with a pronoun (which I assume we can leave alone), suggest there are about 70 lines in the 1346667 line C code base that need work. Any word-smiths out there who want to volunteer to sort this out? -- Kevin Grittner EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers