From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179]:54985 "EHLO mail-ob0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755093AbbAHQtj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:49:39 -0500 Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id va2so8978437obc.10 for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 08:49:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.75] (cpe-70-123-211-202.satx.res.rr.com. [70.123.211.202]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v73sm3035883oie.19.2015.01.08.08.49.37 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Jan 2015 08:49:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54AEB520.9060607@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:49:36 -0600 From: Bruce Dubbs MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Util-Linux Subject: Re: questions on util-linux translation References: <1420490268.1408121.209893057.48A620D9@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1420577328.1786767.210387085.321E0759@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20150108040504.GT29504@cordes.ca> In-Reply-To: <20150108040504.GT29504@cordes.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Peter Cordes wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 09:48:48PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015, at 11:34, Antonio Ceballos wrote: >>> 2. My first suggestion is "too neutral" for that context. Your >>> suggestion probably sounds better. I presume that something >>> more explicit but longer is worse, such as: >>> >>> "partition #7 cannot be removed, as it doesn't exist" >> >> Yeah, that is rather oververbose. The message is not a contextless >> error message, but gets produced only when --verbose is used. The >> previously mentioned example of deleting partitions 5 to 9 (with 7 >> not existing), the command would be: >> >> partx --delete --verbose -n 5:9 /dev/sda >> >> and it currently would print the following progress messages: >> >> dev/sda: partition #5 removed >> dev/sda: partition #6 removed >> dev/sda: partition #7 already doesn't exist >> dev/sda: partition #8 removed >> dev/sda: partition #9 removed >> >> In fact I think the message for #7 is quite good, >> and I don't think that my proposal is any better: >> >> dev/sda: partition #5 removed >> dev/sda: partition #6 removed >> dev/sda: skipping nonexistent partition #7 >> dev/sda: partition #8 removed >> dev/sda: partition #9 removed > > As an unbiased observer (never used partx, so I'm the target audience > for understanding its output), either of these two look fine. > "already doesn't exist" mentally parses quickly. That phrasing has > the advantage that the partition number is at the same column as the > messages for successful deletion, so you can scan down the column of > numbers and see that's the only message about #7. > > With the 2nd phrasing, I found I took a sec of extra time for my eye > to bounce from the column of #5, #6, , #8, #9 out to the #7. > > So I'd suggest keeping the "partition #%d already doesn't exist". As > a native English speaker, I agree it sounds slightly clumsy, but it > gets the point across quickly and unambiguously. You could maybe lose > the word "already", and say > "partition #%d doesn't exist" > > Or maybe "partition #%d: no such partition", to use the familiar > wording of strerror(ENOENT): "no such file or directory". Since we are discussing wording, I will suggest: dev/sda: partition #7 currently does not exist I would think that contractions are not really appropriate in this environment and may marginally help with scripting by omitting the apostrophe. "partition #%d does not exist" is also reasonable. -- Bruce