Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:57:12 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Carlo Strub <cs@FreeBSD.org>, 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 ... Message-ID: <500F6088.5070500@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120725024628.GA3065@FreeBSD.org> References: <201207242127.q6OLRE9x075919@svn.freebsd.org> <20120725022501.GA98315@FreeBSD.org> <500F5B18.1010105@FreeBSD.org> <20120725024628.GA3065@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?500F6088.5070500>