Doc typo: lexems -> lexemes
I ran across a minor typo while reviewing the full-text search
documentation. Attached is a patch to address the one usage of "lexems"
in a sea of "lexemes".
Attachments:
lexems_typo.patchtext/plain; charset=us-asciiDownload
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/textsearch.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/textsearch.sgml
new file mode 100644
index 978aa54..5305198
*** a/doc/src/sgml/textsearch.sgml
--- b/doc/src/sgml/textsearch.sgml
*************** ts_rank(<optional> <replaceable class="P
*** 867,873 ****
<listitem>
<para>
! Ranks vectors based on the frequency of their matching lexems.
</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
--- 867,873 ----
<listitem>
<para>
! Ranks vectors based on the frequency of their matching lexemes.
</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
Dan Scott wrote:
I ran across a minor typo while reviewing the full-text search
documentation. Attached is a patch to address the one usage of
"lexems" in a sea of "lexemes".
Applied to HEAD.
-Kevin
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
On Sep 12, 2012 2:52 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
wrote:
Dan Scott wrote:
I ran across a minor typo while reviewing the full-text search
documentation. Attached is a patch to address the one usage of
"lexems" in a sea of "lexemes".Applied to HEAD.
No back patch? Seems like a bugfix to me...
/Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote:
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
Dan Scott wrote:I ran across a minor typo while reviewing the full-text search
documentation. Attached is a patch to address the one usage of
"lexems" in a sea of "lexemes".Applied to HEAD.
No back patch? Seems like a bugfix to me...
I thought that "minor" changes to the docs were not back-patched.
Did I misunderstand that or is there an exception for spelling
corrections? I'm happy to follow any policy we have, but I guess I'm
not clear enough what that is.
-Kevin
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
On Sep 12, 2012 2:00 PM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
Dan Scott wrote:I ran across a minor typo while reviewing the full-text search
documentation. Attached is a patch to address the one usage of
"lexems" in a sea of "lexemes".Applied to HEAD.
No back patch? Seems like a bugfix to me...
I thought that "minor" changes to the docs were not back-patched.
Did I misunderstand that or is there an exception for spelling
corrections? I'm happy to follow any policy we have, but I guess I'm
not clear enough what that is.
I don't think there is a well covering policy. I'd treat it like a user
facing message in the code, for example. Would you back patch the same
thing if it was in an ereport? If so, I'd back patch it in the docs. It's
docs that people are going to be referring to for years to come.. And the
effort is close to zero to back patch it. If it was more complex, I'd think
twice about it.
/Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote:
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
I'd back patch it in the docs. It's docs that people are going to
be referring to for years to come.. And the effort is close to zero
to back patch it. If it was more complex, I'd think twice about it.
OK, done. Back-patched to 9.1 where the typo first appeared.
-Kevin
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 02:23:50PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Sep 12, 2012 2:00 PM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
"Kevin Grittner" wrote:
Dan Scott wrote:I ran across a minor typo while reviewing the full-text search
documentation. Attached is a patch to address the one usage of
"lexems" in a sea of "lexemes".Applied to HEAD.
No back patch? Seems like a bugfix to me...
I thought that "minor" changes to the docs were not back-patched.
Did I misunderstand that or is there an exception for spelling
corrections? I'm happy to follow any policy we have, but I guess I'm
not clear enough what that is.I don't think there is a well covering policy. I'd treat it like a user facing
message in the code, for example. Would you back patch the same thing if it was
in an ereport? If so, I'd back patch it in the docs. It's docs that people are
going to be referring to for years to come.. And the effort is close to zero to
back patch it. If it was more complex, I'd think twice about it.
Magnus, are you saying we don't backpatch wording improvements, but we
do backpatch spelling corrections?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 10:00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Magnus, are you saying we don't backpatch wording improvements, but we
do backpatch spelling corrections?
You could argue that a spelling correction is a bug fix but a wording
improvement is a new feature. (Unless the old wording is wildly
confusing or inaccurate.)
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:06:15AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 10:00 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Magnus, are you saying we don't backpatch wording improvements, but we
do backpatch spelling corrections?You could argue that a spelling correction is a bug fix but a wording
improvement is a new feature. (Unless the old wording is wildly
confusing or inaccurate.)
OK, that's what I thought. Just clarifying.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +