Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 16:40:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/66481: [patch] share/examples/diskless/README.TEMPLATING tyops Message-ID: <200405112340.i4BNeHDj030574@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/66481; it has been noted by GNATS.
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, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: docs/66481: [patch] share/examples/diskless/README.TEMPLATING
tyops
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 17:37:28 -0600 (MDT)
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?200405112340.i4BNeHDj030574>