Re: Read-only vs read only vs readonly

At Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:07:02 +0000, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote in
> On 9/2/21, 11:30 AM, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)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