From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 24 01:10:11 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CE5106566B for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC2C8FC0C for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7O1AAwg088144 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p7O1AAdP088143; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:10 GMT Message-Id: <201108240110.p7O1AAdP088143@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org From: Benjamin Kaduk Cc: Subject: Re: docs/159897: [patch] improve HAST section of Handbook X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:10:11 -0000 The following reply was made to PR docs/159897; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Warren Block Cc: Taras Korenko , 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: >>>>>> >>>>>>> - File system agnostic, thus allowing to use any file >>>>>>> + 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 ) >>>>> - In order to fix this situation the administrator has to >>>>> + The administrator must >>>>> decide which node has more important changes (or merge them >>>>> - manually) and let the HAST perform >>>>> + manually) and let HAST 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