On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:59:59AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > In the discussion that led to 811b6e36a9e2 I did suggest to use "read > only M of N" instead, but there wasn't enough discussion on that fine > point so we settled on what you now call prevalent without a lot of > support specifically on that. I guess it was enough of an improvement > over what was there. But like Robert, I too prefer the wording that > includes "only" and "bytes" over the wording that doesn't. > > I'll let it be known that from a translator's point of view, it's a > ten-seconds job to update a fuzzy string from not including "only" and > "bytes" to one that does. So let's not make that an argument for not > changing.
Using "only" would be fine by me, though I tend to prefer the existing one. Now I think that we should avoid "bytes" to not have to worry about pluralization of error messages. This has been a concern in the past (see e5d11b9 and the likes). -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
