Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 21:18:48 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Colin Percival <cperciva@tarsnap.com>, Warner Losh <imp@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r362444 - head/sbin/dump Message-ID: <20200620211848.GA2087@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfo73KmTHNo6zjUYLZKi=qcW1SnFTeM5hNiRVyJiT=8FTg@mail.gmail.com> References: <202006202006.05KK6EqK016498@repo.freebsd.org> <01000172d35c996f-523a3c65-2f6b-472e-ad04-070e2b22bfe0-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20200620201934.GA8270@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfo73KmTHNo6zjUYLZKi=qcW1SnFTeM5hNiRVyJiT=8FTg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 03:03:15PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 2:19 PM Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > ... > > Please, just open a DR for that so all interested parties can participate > > and fine-tune particular grammar and language choices. Also, r362447 > > should be reverted on the same grounds as r362422. > > I'd have rather r362447 go through review as well, but really, it's fine > enough for now that it's not worth the churn to back it out. Agreed; I've basically said the same in the follow-up email. If we could fix the "enworker" then it should be as technically correct yet neutral as possible, but even now it's an improvement. So is r362449 (notice how no one had objected to it). ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200620211848.GA2087>