From owner-cvs-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 28 20:08:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B421D16C874; Sun, 28 May 2006 20:08:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pittgoth.com (ns1.pittgoth.com [216.38.206.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D97F43D6E; Sun, 28 May 2006 20:08:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (ip70-177-190-239.dc.dc.cox.net [70.177.190.239]) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k4SLH1Vw032872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 28 May 2006 17:17:02 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 16:08:35 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes To: Marc Fonvieille Message-Id: <20060528160835.728a6095.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060528193758.GC79291@abigail.blackend.org> References: <200605281833.k4SIXQ0S080387@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060528193758.GC79291@abigail.blackend.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: remko@FreeBSD.org, doc-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-doc@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks chapter.sgml X-BeenThere: cvs-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the doc and www trees List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 20:08:48 -0000 On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:37:58 +0200 Marc Fonvieille wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 06:33:25PM +0000, Remko Lodder wrote: > > remko 2006-05-28 18:33:25 UTC > > > > FreeBSD doc repository > > > > Modified files: > > en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks chapter.sgml > > Log: > > Update the DVD-RAM section a bit. This avoids the usage of "you", "we" > > and things like that, which is consistent with the rest of the documention. > > > [...] > > Using grep on chapter.sgml gives about 250 "you" and 35 "we" > (in the related section: 29 "you" and 8 "we"); I think there's a > confusion with the use of "I" or other familiar wordings. > > You changed the active voice of "You have to enable DMA access for ATAPI > devices, this can be done in adding the following line to the > /boot/loader.conf file:" to the passive voice, Ok[1] but you have to > also change the same sentence which appears at the beginning of a > previous subsection (17.7.2) to be really consistent. If you're trying to set a precedent, I'm all about it; however, I think you should change this subject first. This entire discussion is getting dangerously close to a situation where we need to get general agreement. Personally, I see no real problem with Remko's change, other than it changed the "grammatical style" of the section. This doesn't bother me because, if you read over many (too many) of the sections I've written, I push the idea of not addressing the user. Either way can be correct, but I dislike adressing myself, or the user. It also opens the doors for "sexist language." I.e.: "his computer" or "she put the disc in the drive." We have done a good job at restricting sexist language: %find . -type file -name "*.sgml" | xargs grep "[[:space:]]her[[:space:]]" ./config/chapter.sgml: When a user installs his or her crontab file, they %find . -type file -name "*.sgml" | xargs grep "[[:space:]]him[[:space:]]" ./mac/chapter.sgml: exactly how everything works may find him or herself going ./multimedia/chapter.sgml: operator group will allow him to use ./security/chapter.sgml: him in the act. But currently we mix both passive and active and I would like to see a choice made and we stick to it. Looks better, more professional, etc. Note, I would not be too happy with using active since I have at least 3000 lines which use passive. Note I say "at least," there are probably many MANY more. Personally, I have yet to see a really good argument for using one over the other. Thanks, -- Tom Rhodes