From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francis Daly Subject: Re: [PATCH] Some doc typo fixes Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:46:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20060607174614.GU29682@craic.sysops.org> References: <20060607125644.GT29682@craic.sysops.org> <7v1wu0lxnd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vwtbshp3d.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 07 19:46:44 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fo26q-0005MG-EX for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:46:25 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750893AbWFGRqW (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:46:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750894AbWFGRqW (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:46:22 -0400 Received: from craic.sysops.org ([217.75.2.2]:51176 "EHLO craic.sysops.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750889AbWFGRqV (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:46:21 -0400 Received: from craic.sysops.org (craic.sysops.org [127.0.0.1]) by craic.sysops.org (8.13.1/8.12.11) with SMTP id k57HkEu0031251; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 18:46:14 +0100 To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vwtbshp3d.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88/1517/Wed Jun 7 01:05:07 2006 on craic.sysops.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=2.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.5 (2005-11-28) on craic.sysops.org Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:07:02AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > Francis Daly writes: > > Thanks. I am not a native, and this is very much appreciated. You're welcome. > >> . It could be named hierarchically (i.e. separated with slash > >> - `/`), but each of its component cannot begin with a dot `.`; > >> + `/`), but each of its components cannot begin with a dot `.`; > > > > I am not sure; ... > > Sheesh, I was reading the diff backwards. Sorry. No worries. I had a head-scratching moment, and suspect that the whole stanza could be better phrased. If only there was someone who didn't already know what it means, they could suggest which phrasing makes it clear... How about rewriting it as It can include slash `/` for hierarchical (directory) grouping, but no slash-separated component can begin with a dot `.`; ? "can" instead of "could" fits the later parts, and it removes the possessive and reverses the negative for something that (to my mind) scans better. Cheers, f -- Francis Daly francis@daoine.org