Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:53:23 +0100 From: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r307951 - head/sysutils/sleuthkit Message-ID: <20121129165323.ac3b2ec8aa6bf736490ff8aa@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20121129152214.GA54704@FreeBSD.org> References: <201211290020.qAT0Kecl058401@svn.freebsd.org> <20121129020924.GC11624@FreeBSD.org> <20121129034450.f0d1802f0dd0c5c2396d1ebd@FreeBSD.org> <20121129032332.GA17732@FreeBSD.org> <20121129130147.c5fcd6296c6bd967ca0745e4@FreeBSD.org> <20121129152214.GA54704@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > > Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > 76 in some case if formatting looks better (more even at the right > > > edge), previous version complied to this as well. Now 'Mac' in > > > the line 7 touches the screen edge; the whole right edge is > > > uneven. You still thing it looks better, seriously? > > > > To me yes. The terminals xterm, rxvt, aterm, eterm all have a 80 > > character width: > > Yes, my point is that with 80-char width xterm, wrapping should be > done 2-4 chars earlier. It gives clear indication of a line break > (vs. automatic wrapping that went unnoticed), 2-4 char buffer allows > to tweak the text to make the right margin less ragged and eye > appealing, and reduces the chance of reformatting when small > (typically one-character) adjustment must be done in that line. In > your case, line that touches right boundary (i.e. 80 char line) is > vulnerable to all these bugs. > > > > Correct, because justified spacing normally does look ugly with > > > monospaced fonts. Double spacing (at the sentence breaks), on the > > > contrary, makes it look better. Please reconsider. I put a lot > > > of > > > > Again: "your opinion" > > No, this is more that just that. You might want to google for some > researches that had been carried out over the times WRT this issue. > Wikipedia [1] should give you a good start: > > ``It was felt that with the monospaced font used by a typewriter, > "a single word space ... was not wide enough to create a sufficient > space between sentences" and that extra space might help signal the > end of a sentence, rather than use of a mid-sentence abbreviation.'' > > It still applies to us since we're all are using monospaced fonts in > our terminals. > > > > thought into our port descriptions and it's really sad to see my > > > work destroyed. > > > > FreeBSD is a large project with > 400 committers and many more > > highly motivated active contributors. I would suggest you get > > familiar with the concept of people having different opinions. > > Accusing others of not caring or destroying "your work" (really? > > please...) is just ridiculous. > > I merely said I've put a lot of work into port description, > particularly this one. I've tried to back up my views with > reasonable, verifiable (and arguable) facts and references, getting > only Lebowski quotes back from you, yet I'm being told to get my act > together about collaborative work. I'm really sorry to hear that > from you Emanuel. > > ./danfe > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_spacing Please let's take this off list. Emanuel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121129165323.ac3b2ec8aa6bf736490ff8aa>