Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:10 GMT From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/159897: [patch] improve HAST section of Handbook Message-ID: <201108240110.p7O1AAdP088143@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/159897; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>
To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
Cc: Taras Korenko <ds@ukrhub.net>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org,
freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: docs/159897: [patch] improve HAST section of Handbook
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 21:04:27 -0400 (EDT)
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?201108240110.p7O1AAdP088143>