Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:04:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/159897: [patch] improve HAST section of Handbook Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1108232046080.7526@multics.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108230623001.3513@wonkity.com> References: <201108182253.p7IMr0us086588@red.freebsd.org> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1108202132270.7526@multics.mit.edu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108210833530.88964@wonkity.com> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1108221233160.7526@multics.mit.edu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108221743480.888@wonkity.com> <20110823060936.GA19211@chaos.ukrhub.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108230623001.3513@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Warren Block wrote: > On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Taras Korenko wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 06:08:09PM -0600, Warren Block wrote: >>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2011, Warren Block wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Warren Block wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> - <para>File system agnostic, thus allowing to use any file >>>>>>> + <para>File system agnostic, thus allowing use of any file >>>>>> >>>>>> I think "allowing the use" is better here. >>>>> >>>>> "allowing any" might be even better. >>>> >>>> I don't think that would be correct usage -- "allowing any file system" >>>> to >>>> do what? >>> >>> Allowing any file system versus allowing only file systems made for >>> HAST. Looking at it again, the problem is the word "allowing". What >>> this is really saying is: "File system agnostic, compatible with any >>> file system supported by &os;." >>> >> >> File system agnostic, thus allowing laying out any file >> system supported by &os;. > > Another day and now "agnostic" looks wrong. IMO, the meaning is not "HAST is > unsure that file systems exist", but that it operates at a block level and is > not even aware of file systems. More simply, it doesn't care which file > system is used. > > So my latest proposal for the simplest rewording is > > "Works with any file system supported by FreeBSD." Filesystem-agnostic is something of a term of art for this sort of thing; I would stick with: "File system agnostic; works with any file system supported by FreeBSD." (This is where bde comes in and tells me off for condensing filesystem into a single word, per http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/2011-June/028709.html ) >>>>> - <para>In order to fix this situation the administrator has to >>>>> + <para>The administrator must >>>>> decide which node has more important changes (or merge them >>>>> - manually) and let the <acronym>HAST</acronym> perform >>>>> + manually) and let <acronym>HAST</acronym> perform >>>>> the full synchronization of the node which has the broken >>>> >>>> Just "full synchronization", I think. >>> >>> Changing "of" to "on" ("full synchronization on the node") also helps a >>> bit. >> >> I think I still prefer "of", but would not object to "on". > > The idea is that "synchronization of the node" is ambiguous about which node > is being changed, where "synchronization on the node", er, isn't. It is "synchronization of the node to the reference state" versus "a synchronization process on the [broken] node to bring it back into a good state". In going for concision, we necessarily introduce some ambiguity; I'm not equipped to say which one has the greater ambiguity for more people. Thanks again, Ben
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.1.10.1108232046080.7526>