From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Sat Jun 20 21:18:49 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14374334F8E; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 21:18:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49q7p06pxVz3cQx; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 21:18:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id DDA791EB63; Sat, 20 Jun 2020 21:18:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 21:18:48 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Warner Losh Cc: Colin Percival , Warner Losh , src-committers , svn-src-all , svn-src-head Subject: Re: svn commit: r362444 - head/sbin/dump Message-ID: <20200620211848.GA2087@FreeBSD.org> References: <202006202006.05KK6EqK016498@repo.freebsd.org> <01000172d35c996f-523a3c65-2f6b-472e-ad04-070e2b22bfe0-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20200620201934.GA8270@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 21:18:49 -0000 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