From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May  6 23:00:51 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CE37B37B401; Tue,  6 May 2003 23:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1596943F3F; Tue,  6 May 2003 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org)
Received: from master.dougb.net (12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23])
          by attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP
          id <20030507060019051009ajkre>; Wed, 7 May 2003 06:00:20 +0000
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 23:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org>
To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030507014339.2e467c3a.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20030506225709.T5620@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
References: <200305051936.h45JaAc4099544@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20030507014339.2e467c3a.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: hmp@FreeBSD.org
cc: doc-committers@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org
cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
cc: des@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks
	chapter.sgml
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 06:00:52 -0000

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Tom Rhodes wrote:

> On Tue, 6 May 2003 22:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
> Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>
> > What's the purpose of this change? The words are basically synonyms, and
> > either is appropriate in context.

> Actually, and according to my dictionary, irrelevant is more correct
> here.

That wasn't my actual question. :) Let me rephrase. "Given that these two
words basically mean the same thing in context, what was the overwhelming
necessity of this change?" If the reason was, "To make the meaning
slightly more accurate," then we can argue the merits based on that... I'm
just curious.

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection