From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 22 16:36:46 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B181D1065670; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:36:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (DMZ-MAILSEC-SCANNER-8.MIT.EDU [18.7.68.37]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5044C8FC13; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:36:46 +0000 (UTC) X-AuditID: 12074425-b7b15ae000000f71-d3-4e528562582e Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id FA.B7.03953.265825E4; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:35:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id p7MGajL1017703; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:36:45 -0400 Received: from multics.mit.edu (MULTICS.MIT.EDU [18.187.1.73]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id p7MGahkH006955 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:36:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kaduk@localhost) by multics.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id p7MGagHS019660; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 12:36:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Warren Block In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <201108182253.p7IMr0us086588@red.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (GSO 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrAIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nopvUGuRncPqfssWpM12sFi1PVrNb /Drl4cDsMePTfBaPIx2PGAOYorhsUlJzMstSi/TtErgynp/ezFpwi79i3tF/bA2M63m6GDk5 JARMJL78vcoCYYtJXLi3nq2LkYtDSGAfo0TvtEmsEM4GRoll73YwglQJCRxgkng4Rx7CbmCU WHNCCsRmEdCW6L+xggnEZhNQkZj5ZiPQJA4OEQFVib1nrEHCzAK2EnsmPGEGsYUFnCSuzDjP DmJzCthJTL2/BqyVV8BB4vfdy0wQexcwSkw7voINJCEqoCOxev8UFogiQYmTM5+wQAy1lPi3 9hfrBEbBWUhSs5CkFjAyrWKUTcmt0s1NzMwpTk3WLU5OzMtLLdK10MvNLNFLTSndxAgOWBfV HYwTDikdYhTgYFTi4X1gEugnxJpYVlyZe4hRkoNJSZS3rznIT4gvKT+lMiOxOCO+qDQntfgQ owQHs5IIb4MfUI43JbGyKrUoHyYlzcGiJM77eoeDn5BAemJJanZqakFqEUxWhoNDSYKXExiZ QoJFqempFWmZOSUIaSYOTpDhPEDD97WADC8uSMwtzkyHyJ9iVJQS550GkhAASWSU5sH1whLK K0ZxoFeEIdp5gMkIrvsV0GAmoMETVgaADC5JREhJNTDGzctOnyNw9ebFhwmG/0Ud9hwq31bO NNfdhsm3Rc7tmfvL+as/a9m/FFQU7a5MDVv3OTPRQtD1qfJ6TcYlaYL3/06dMOHyDJeTJR9X aqQbL9z/cVdqsd2/4B9V29udS7K+RPLl9M1MLOA/p3cwZcl2nuNNs9ZMjskUuWD1e//Ok3fj mG8di/VTYinOSDTUYi4qTgQA75cGdAMDAAA= Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/159897: [patch] improve HAST section of Handbook X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:36:46 -0000 On Sun, 21 Aug 2011, Warren Block wrote: > On Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > >> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Warren Block wrote: >> >>> - File system agnostic, thus allowing to use any file >>> + File system agnostic, thus allowing use of any file >> >> I think "allowing the use" is better here. > > "allowing any" might be even better. I don't think that would be correct usage -- "allowing any file system" to do what? > >>> Once the HAST framework is configured >>> properly, the final step is to make sure that >>> - HAST is started during the system boot time >>> - automatically. The following line should be added to the >>> - /etc/rc.conf file: >>> + HAST is started automatically during the system >>> + boot. This line is added to >>> + /etc/rc.conf: >> >> "This line is added" is a pretty unusual grammatical construct for what is >> attempting to be conveyed. "To do so, add this line to" I think says >> things more clearly. > > I would prefer the imperative "Add this line to...". That works. I had initially shied away from it since it could be read to imply that all users should do so, not just those wanting to use HAST. But this is the HAST section, after all. > >>> - In order to fix this situation the administrator has to >>> + The administrator must >>> decide which node has more important changes (or merge them >>> - manually) and let the HAST perform >>> + manually) and let HAST perform >>> the full synchronization of the node which has the broken >> >> Just "full synchronization", I think. > > Changing "of" to "on" ("full synchronization on the node") also helps a bit. > I think I still prefer "of", but would not object to "on". Can you prepare an updated patch with these changes? Thanks, Ben