From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Grammar fixes for gitattributes documentation Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:15:59 -0500 Message-ID: <20071115071558.GE10185@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <33080F0B-80C0-4860-9A74-C6878EE3B2CD@wincent.com> <7vfxz9kxz3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <3461FD6E-1C46-4278-9EB0-5D730BB99084@wincent.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Wincent Colaiuta X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 15 08:16:54 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IsYy5-00028h-Mj for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:16:54 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754458AbXKOHQf (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:16:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751798AbXKOHQf (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:16:35 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:2522 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755824AbXKOHQe (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:16:34 -0500 Received: (qmail 6804 invoked by uid 111); 15 Nov 2007 07:16:02 -0000 Received: from ppp-216-106-96-30.storm.ca (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (216.106.96.30) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:16:02 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:15:59 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3461FD6E-1C46-4278-9EB0-5D730BB99084@wincent.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:04:25AM +0100, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: >>> +A `filter` attribute can be set to a string value which names a >>> filter driver specified in the configuration. >> >> Will we get the canned "which vs that" discussion on this change? > > Perhaps. Neither would be incorrect, although technically "that" is a > tighter match. Really? I would think "which" works better, in that it is not restrictive. I.e., "The filter attribute is set to a string. This string, btw, names a filter driver" (which) rather than "The filter attribute is set to a string, and from the set of strings, it is set to the particular string that names a filter driver" (that). But in the non-restrictive case, it should be in a parenthetical phrase: A `filter` attribute can be set to a string value, which names a filter driver specified in the configuration. I think either is readable, though. :) -Peff