From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 25 02:57:14 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03304106564A; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 02:57:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from opti.dougb.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD2314E3D8; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 02:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <500F6088.5070500@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:57:12 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120621 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Dokuchaev References: <201207242127.q6OLRE9x075919@svn.freebsd.org> <20120725022501.GA98315@FreeBSD.org> <500F5B18.1010105@FreeBSD.org> <20120725024628.GA3065@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120725024628.GA3065@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Carlo Strub , ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r301497 - in head: databases/rubygem-dm-migrations deskutils/libgcal deskutils/p5-ZConf-BGSet deskutils/p5-ZConf-Runner deskutils/xrolo devel/alabastra devel/librcd devel/py-pytemplate ... X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 02:57:14 -0000 On 07/24/2012 19:46, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > Now that you've mentioned it, yes, we have a large diversity in using > indefinite article in the beginning of COMMENT line. I would also want us > to settle on some standard. If you say it should be dropped, so let it be. Oh how I wish I had such power. :) The rule has always been "No article at the beginning of the COMMENT." Unfortunately not only is TPH insufficiently clear on this point, the actual (long-time historical) example given is misleading in the sense that it seems to not only allow, but to encourage an indefinite article. The specific usage in the case of the port referenced would be allowed because it's a whimsical description of what the port does, rather than a description of the port itself. However, it's still a painfully bad example. I would gladly punch up this page of the handbook if there is consensus to do so. Doug -- Change is hard.