Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:37:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michel_Lavond=E8s?= <fox@vader.aacc.cc.md.us> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/66481: [patch] share/examples/diskless/README.TEMPLATING tyops Message-ID: <20040511051938.X10037@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405110220170.3084-100000@vader.aacc.edu> References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405110220170.3084-100000@vader.aacc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 May 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Michel Lavond=E8s wrote: > > The "on" should be removed. > > I don't think so. The whole sentence reads as follows: > > * The program accesses a file called .cpignore in each director= y > it descends into on the source to obtain a list of exceptions > for that directory -- that is, files not to copy or mess with= =2E > > Perhaps it could be reworded as "each directory of the source [tree] into > which it descends", but this is (IMHO) a matter of taste, and I'd rather > not get involved in those. Ah--it's not an extra word, but a clash of phrasing. Sorry, I saw it out of context. How about: Each source directory is checked for a file called .cpignore. If present, this file contains a list of exceptions: files that are not to be copied or messed with. "Messed with" is a little, uh, messy. It doesn't really tell the reader what might happen to a file. It could be copied, or it could be overwritten. The last three words could be dropped if it just won't be copied; otherwise, seems like "cpignore" is a misnomer. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040511051938.X10037>