From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 14 05:26:05 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39901065670 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:26:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F24A8FC12 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:26:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9E5Q4c3051516; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:26:04 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id p9E5Q4GI051513; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:26:04 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:26:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Benjamin Kaduk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <201110121030.p9CAUDxd032245@freefall.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:26:04 -0600 (MDT) Cc: Niclas Zeising , freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/160696: style(9) should be mentioned in the devs' handbook X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:26:06 -0000 On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Warren Block wrote: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > >> The overall paragraph feels a bit odd, though; maybe like it's written in a >> more informal style than I would expect? A more standard dry, technical >> writing version might be: >> %%%%%%%%%% >> When working in a large codebase such as the &os; source, it is >> important to adhere to a common coding style. This provides uniformity > ^^^^^^ > "conform" might be better here. That's "conform" might be better than "adhere", sorry.