Re: questions on util-linux translation

[JWP <elseifthen@gmx.com>]

On 01/07/2015 11:05 PM, 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, <gap>, #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"

dev/sda: partition #5 removed
dev/sda: partition #6 removed
dev/sda: partition #7 doesn't exist
dev/sda: partition #8 removed
dev/sda: partition #9 removed

That sounds the most correct to me; 'already' is the clumsy part.