From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57890) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNDIm-0008ND-8x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 02:42:33 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eNDIl-0002iy-D7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 02:42:32 -0500 From: Markus Armbruster References: <20171207084453.23773-1-famz@redhat.com> <20171207105827.5bqrsqbv7ljgmwc6@eukaryote> <20171208014131.GA15798@lemon> Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 08:42:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20171208014131.GA15798@lemon> (Fam Zheng's message of "Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:41:31 +0800") Message-ID: <874lp1k6n8.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-block] [PATCH] qemu-img: Document --force-share / -U List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Fam Zheng Cc: Eric Blake , Kevin Wolf , Max Reitz , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Kashyap Chamarthy Fam Zheng writes: > On Thu, 12/07 10:53, Eric Blake wrote: >> On 12/07/2017 04:58 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: >> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 04:44:53PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote: [...] >> >> +it less likely to conflict with a running guest's permissions due to image >> >> +locking. For example, this can be used to get the image information (with >> >> +'info' subcommand) when the image is used by a running guest. Note that this >> >> +could produce inconsistent result because of concurrent metadata changes, etc.. >> > >> > Super nit-pick: an ellipsis[*] is three dots :-), so, when applying you >> > might want to: s/../.../ >> > >> > [*] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ellipsis >> >> Except that both "etc." and "..." independently convey a sense of >> continuation, which means that using both at once is both redundant >> (just one will do) and difficult to argue how to typeset (since 'etc.' >> is often written with an explicit '.' to emphasize that is an >> abbreviation, does that mean you have to write 'etc.''...' for a total >> of 4 dots?). > > I have the impression that "etc." is more correct than "etc" It is. > so I used even at > the end of the sensence where there is another period '.', making it "etc..". That's wrong all the same :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Period_(punctuation)#Abbreviations > If ending the paragraph with "etc." is enough, we can drop one ".". Please do.