From owner-freebsd-doc  Sun Jun 23 12:42:41 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org
Received: from mail.reppep.com (www.reppep.com [64.81.19.108])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 787D837B401; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [64.81.19.109] (g4.reppep.com [64.81.19.109])
	by mail.reppep.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5BEF717B8C; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 14:47:14 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: pepper@mail.reppep.com
Message-Id: <p05200116b93bca812e04@[64.81.19.109]>
In-Reply-To: <200206050110.g551A3n44972@freefall.freebsd.org>
References: <200206050110.g551A3n44972@freefall.freebsd.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:40:29 -0400
To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org>
From: Chris Pepper <pepper@reppep.com>
Subject: Re: docs/38880: Typo fixes in
 doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cutting-edge/chapter.sgml
Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-doc.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-doc>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-doc>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

At 6:10 PM -0700 02/6/4, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>The following reply was made to PR docs/38880; it has been noted by GNATS.
>
>From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org>
>To: Chris Pepper <pepper@rockefeller.edu>
>Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org
>Subject: Re: docs/38880: Typo fixes in 
>doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/cutting-edge/chapter.sgml
>Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 04:04:05 +0300
>
>  On 2002-06-03 23:09 -0400, Chris Pepper wrote:
>  > -	<filename>/var/tmp/root</filename> have a leading <quote/./.  At the
>  > +	<filename>/var/tmp/root</filename> have a leading 
><quote>.</quote>.  At the
>
>  This is not really a typo.  It's valid SGML, AFAIK.
>  What do you all others think?  Is this (and similar parts of the
>  patch) worth the change?

	I didn't think it was a typo (it renders correctly), but it's 
confusing. I think it would be clearer for docproj workers (like me) 
if it used a more obvious tag.

>  > -		<para>Pass the <option>-j&lt;n&gt;</option> option to make to
>  > +		<para>Pass the <option>-j&lt;n&gt;</option> option to 
>&man.make.1; to
>
>  I'd probably use <command>make</command> but this is OK too, I guess.

	I figured the man ref was more useful, in case they want to 
read about the options.


	Once the patch is applied (in whatever form), I'll submit 
another one to remove the "make -j4" suggestion for single CPUs, 
since it's confirmed and agreed to make things slower.


						Chris
-- 
Chris Pepper:               <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University:        <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message