[PATCH] Edit user manual for grammer.

[PATCH] Edit user manual for grammer.

[Steve Hoelzer]

Signed-off-by: Steve Hoelzer <shoelzer@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/user-manual.txt |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
index 0bfa21b..68bf4e2 100644
--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
@@ -1529,7 +1529,7 @@ dangling tree b24c2473f1fd3d91352a624795be026d64c8841f

 Dangling objects are not a problem.  At worst they may take up a little
 extra disk space.  They can sometimes provide a last-resort method of
-recovery lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details.  However, if
+recovering lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details.  However, if
 you want, you may remove them with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune
 option to gitlink:git-gc[1]:

--
1.5.2.73.g18bece

[PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[Andy Parkins]

 - "last-resort" is two words, not a conjoined word, it doesn't require
   the hyphen
 - "method of" is vulgar, "method for" is nicer
 - "recovery" becomes "recovering" from Steve Hoelzer's original version
   of this patch
 - "if you want" is nicer as "if you wish"
 - "you may" should be "you can"; "you may" is "you have permission to"
   rather than "you can"'s "it is possible to"

Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
---

My apologies for jumping on your patch, but when I read the context of your
change, I couldn't resist fixing some things around it too.

 Documentation/user-manual.txt |    6 +++---
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
index 7eaafa8..d62ccd0 100644
--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
@@ -1527,9 +1527,9 @@ dangling tree b24c2473f1fd3d91352a624795be026d64c8841f
 -------------------------------------------------
 
 Dangling objects are not a problem.  At worst they may take up a little
-extra disk space.  They can sometimes provide a last-resort method of
-recovery lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details.  However, if
-you want, you may remove them with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune
+extra disk space.  They can sometimes provide a last resort method for
+recovering lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details.  However, if
+you wish, you can remove them with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune
 option to gitlink:git-gc[1]:
 
 -------------------------------------------------
-- 
1.5.2.1.134.gd166e

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Andy Parkins wrote:

> My apologies for jumping on your patch, but when I read the context of 
> your change, I couldn't resist fixing some things around it too.

You sound like you address somebody personally. However, your "To:" only 
contains the list. Netiquette?

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[Andy Parkins]

On Tuesday 2007, June 12, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> You sound like you address somebody personally. However, your "To:"
> only contains the list. Netiquette?

Apols; I made the patch with git-format-patch, which obviously didn't 
know who I was replying to.

It was aimed at Steve Hoelzer, as it's his patch I enhanced (and 
effectively stole :-)


Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:43:19PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
>  - "last-resort" is two words, not a conjoined word, it doesn't require
>    the hyphen

Right, but when you've got a couple words functioning together to modify
a following noun, the hyphen's pretty standard: "rosy-fingered dawn".
Is this case an exception?  I suspect it's fine either way....

>  - "method of" is vulgar, "method for" is nicer

Reference?

>  - "recovery" becomes "recovering" from Steve Hoelzer's original version
>    of this patch
>  - "if you want" is nicer as "if you wish"
>  - "you may" should be "you can"; "you may" is "you have permission to"
>    rather than "you can"'s "it is possible to"

Fair enough, thanks.

What we really need is a complete recovery tutorial to stick in here
someplace.  (One day git complains about a corrupt pack file.  What do
you do?)  What's been stopping me from doing it, besides time, is no
idea how to come up with a good example to work with.

--b.

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[Andy Parkins]

On Tuesday 2007, June 12, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:43:19PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
> >  - "last-resort" is two words, not a conjoined word, it doesn't
> > require the hyphen
>
> Right, but when you've got a couple words functioning together to
> modify a following noun, the hyphen's pretty standard: "rosy-fingered
> dawn". Is this case an exception?  I suspect it's fine either way....

It's certainly common, I don't think that it's correct though.  The 
hyphen's is to form a new word from multiple other words; but often 
these days it's just used to join two words that the author wanted 
saying faster in his head.  The test I always use is if the meaning 
remains the same without the hyphen, it wasn't necessary.

Examples:
  merry-go-round    versus    merry go round
  editor-in-chief   versus    editor in chief

Both of the above loose their meaning when they don't have the hyphens.

"last-resort" doesn't need to be compound because separated it still 
means "the resort that is last".

I don't say that it is a definitive _wrong_ as the meaning is not lost 
nor modified; but I've always viewed English like programming - don't 
add unnecessary complication.

> >  - "method of" is vulgar, "method for" is nicer
>
> Reference?

Please don't take "vulgar" to mean disgusting, I meant "common".  Sorry 
if that was offensive.

Preposition selection and use is highly localised.  I will happily 
accept if you don't agree.  Here is the only reference I can find, but 
it is certainly not definitive, not entirely about this subject...

http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?b=2437&m=1259471&t=355765&w=1

However, it does make the case that "of" is possessive, so a "method 
of ..." means "a method that belongs to ...", so to my ears "a method 
for" seems the better choice.

> What we really need is a complete recovery tutorial to stick in here
> someplace.  (One day git complains about a corrupt pack file.  What
> do you do?)  What's been stopping me from doing it, besides time, is
> no idea how to come up with a good example to work with.

A big magnet on your hard disk? ;-)


Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:27:59PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
> It's certainly common, I don't think that it's correct though.

In cases like this some seem to think it's actually required:

	"Use a hyphen to connect two or more words functioning together
	as an adjective before a noun."

(From p. 234 of "A Writer's Reference", 3rd ed., Diana Hacker--just what
I happen to have on my shelf.) I suppose it's there to help find the
modified noun when you're constructing modifiers out of multiple words
that aren't necessarily adjectives.

But whatever, I've no real objection to the patch.

> Please don't take "vulgar" to mean disgusting, I meant "common".  Sorry 
> if that was offensive.

Nah, just curious.  "For" seems a little more precise in this case, so
fair enough.

> > What we really need is a complete recovery tutorial to stick in here
> > someplace.  (One day git complains about a corrupt pack file.  What
> > do you do?)  What's been stopping me from doing it, besides time, is
> > no idea how to come up with a good example to work with.
> 
> A big magnet on your hard disk? ;-)

Hah.  OK, next suggestion....

--b.

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[David Kastrup]

Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> writes:

> "last-resort" doesn't need to be compound because separated it still 
> means "the resort that is last".

The context was "a last-resort method".  In this case, I consider the
hyphen necessary in order to keep the adjectivization connected.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[Randal L. Schwartz]

>>>>> "J" == J Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:

J> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:43:19PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
>> - "last-resort" is two words, not a conjoined word, it doesn't require
>> the hyphen

J> Right, but when you've got a couple words functioning together to modify
J> a following noun, the hyphen's pretty standard: "rosy-fingered dawn".
J> Is this case an exception?  I suspect it's fine either way....

According to <http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/042703.htm>, hyphenate
unless it's a "ly" or unless it makes clear sense without it.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[David Kastrup]

"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:43:19PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
>>  - "last-resort" is two words, not a conjoined word, it doesn't require
>>    the hyphen
>
> Right, but when you've got a couple words functioning together to modify
> a following noun, the hyphen's pretty standard: "rosy-fingered
> dawn".

This rendition of ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς is an adjectivized verb construct,
like well-hung, good-natured, forward-looking, thinly-veiled (the
latter can be written as two words, too, however).

> Is this case an exception?  I suspect it's fine either way....

Nope.  It was used in "a last-resort method", namely in the
adjectivized meaning.  Without the hyphen, it would become the last of
some resort methods, quite something different (and nonsensical).

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[Andy Parkins]

On Wednesday 2007 June 13, David Kastrup wrote:

> Nope.  It was used in "a last-resort method", namely in the
> adjectivized meaning.  Without the hyphen, it would become the last of
> some resort methods, quite something different (and nonsensical).

Agreed.  I withdraw my objection.


Andy
-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com

Re: [PATCH] Edit user manual for grammar

[Shawn O. Pearce]

"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:43:19PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
> >  - "recovery" becomes "recovering" from Steve Hoelzer's original version
> >    of this patch
> >  - "if you want" is nicer as "if you wish"
> >  - "you may" should be "you can"; "you may" is "you have permission to"
> >    rather than "you can"'s "it is possible to"
> 
> What we really need is a complete recovery tutorial to stick in here
> someplace.  (One day git complains about a corrupt pack file.  What do
> you do?)  What's been stopping me from doing it, besides time, is no
> idea how to come up with a good example to work with.

  dd if=/dev/urandom of=.git/pack/pack-DEAD.pack bs=1 seek=12 count=512

Now run git-log.  Its probably toast.  The front of the packfile
is usually commits, and the first object is usually the most
recent commit.  It starts at byte 12.  ;-)

We actually do this in the test suite to verify that verify-pack will
detect the corruption.  Recovering from it is a bit more interesting
and difficult.

The more common corruption is to repack away an important object
by accident in a shared object directory arrangement.  Or just
havee your OS' "disk corruptor^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvirus scanner" delete
the thing.  E.g. create a few commits, pick one out of git-log
and just rm its file in .git/objects/??.  How do you get out of
that mess?  ;-)

-- 
Shawn.