On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > >> Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause > issues for > >>> translations, right? So we should make it head only? > > >> We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many > >> translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be > >> caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better > >> than an outdated native-language message. > > > That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part. > > Yeah, if the existing message text is actually wrong or misleading, > we should back-patch. I'm not sure I would do that if it's just a > cosmetic improvement. In this particular case, +1. > OK. Applied and backpatched. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
