Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:09:46 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: bmah@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, kris@obsecurity.org, silby@silby.com, alex@big.endian.de Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/man/man4 rl.4 Message-ID: <20021106130946.76170311.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20021106114047.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <200211061451.gA6EpAlo035097@intruder.bmah.org> <XFMail.20021106114047.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:40:47 -0500 (EST) John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > On 06-Nov-2002 Bruce A. Mah wrote: > > If memory serves me right, Alexander Langer wrote: > >> Thus spake Mike Silbersack (silby@silby.com): > >> > >> > In this case, the file in question is a manpage rather than a piece of > >> > source code. The source code remains unchanged (as it should be.) > >> > >> The text in question is not descriminating. It just mentions, that > >> the docs and the design are bad. It's up to one himself if he wants > >> a cheap NIC and live with malformed data, or if he wants a better > >> NIC. However, I think it's quite important to tell people at least what > >> a bad chip they are using, and the driver manpage is the correct place > >> for this. > > > > I'm not sure whether all the people objecting to this commit actually > > *looked* at the diff, but almost all of the information about the flaws > > of the rl(4) NIC actually remained intact. Only two sentences were > > deleted: > > > > The RealTek data sheets are of especially poor quality: the grammar > > and spelling are awful and there is a lot of information missing, > > particularly concerning the receiver operation. > > One particularly > > important fact that the data sheets fail to mention relates to the > > way in which the chip fills in the receive buffer. > > > > The first one deals with the quality of the data sheet...it actually > > doesn't say anything about the NIC itself. I think that one *can* go > > away. I'd put the second sentence back, however, because it helps the > > rest of the paragraph make more sense. > > The second sentence is important, yes. Of the first sentence, I can > see removing the comments about grammar and spelling, but I would > leave the information about missing information that that is important. > If a company makes sloppy hardware and sloppy documentation that says > more than a company that makes sloppy hardware but at least turns out > accurate documentation. Maybe: > > "The RealTek data sheets are of especially poor quality. There is a > lot of information missing, particularly concerning the receiver > operation." > > etc. (and add the second sentence back in). This preserves complaints > about the lack of technical quality in the documentation w/o beating > up on RealTek for really stupid stuff (spelling, grammar, etc.). This > should be restored at the very least if the entire commit is not reverted. > > -- > > John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ > I can accept this request. And will work on it after review of my mail. -- Tom Rhodes To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021106130946.76170311.trhodes>