Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 23:00:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> Cc: des@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks chapter.sgml Message-ID: <20030506225709.T5620@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <20030507014339.2e467c3a.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> References: <200305051936.h45JaAc4099544@repoman.freebsd.org> <20030507014339.2e467c3a.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506225709.T5620>