From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 16 19:08:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8833916A4CE for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mxout5.cac.washington.edu (mxout5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.135]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A9C43D3F for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dsyphers@u.washington.edu) Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9]) ESMTP id i9GJ8UBx011741; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:08:30 -0700 Received: from yggdrasil.seektruth.org (c-24-18-235-11.client.comcast.net [24.18.235.11]) (authenticated bits=0)i9GJ8UE9003562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:08:30 -0700 From: David Syphers To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, rionda@gufi.org Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:08:31 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <1097916792.1810.4.camel@kaiser.sig11.org> In-Reply-To: <1097916792.1810.4.camel@kaiser.sig11.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200410161208.32381.dsyphers@u.washington.edu> Subject: Re: UPDATING readability X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:08:31 -0000 On Saturday 16 October 2004 01:53 am, Matteo Riondato wrote: > Could we change an entry from: > > 20041007: > One of the syscalls the 1:1 threading library libthr uses has > changed, thus breaking ABI compatibility. Make sure you rebuild > this library with the kernel. > > to: > > 20041007: > One of the syscalls used by the 1:1 threading library libthr > has changed, thus breaking ABI compatibility. Make sure you rebuild > this library with the kernel. > > I think this will improve the readability and the comprension of the > entry by the non-native english speakers. I hate to be pedantic, but the original entry is preferable. In English it is correct to avoid the passive voice when possible (though not nearly to the extent that, say, French does). The active voice is quite appropriate here, where the subject is clearly defined. Is there a particular reason why non-native speakers would prefer the passive voice? -David