cvs commit: doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks chapter.sgml

[Doug Barton]

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Hiten Pandya wrote:

> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 11:00:18PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > > Actually, and according to my dictionary, irrelevant is more correct
> > > here.
> >
> > That wasn't my actual question. :) Let me rephrase. "Given that these two
> > words basically mean the same thing in context, what was the overwhelming
> > necessity of this change?" If the reason was, "To make the meaning
> > slightly more accurate," then we can argue the merits based on that... I'm
> > just curious.
>
> 	Two reasons:
>
> 		a) Use simple english which everyone can understand.
> 		Many people from the far east etc do not understand such
> 		words, while they can undersand ``useless'' or
> 		''irrelevant''.  This is also the same reason for my
> 		"automatic to automagic" change.
>
> 		b) The 'insignificant' meaning of the word `moot' is
> 		secondary, while it's primary meaning is the opposite

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning, but I don't disagree strongly
enough to ask you to reverse it, however...

> 	I have already discussed this change with my mentor, and he
> 	asked me the same question.

Your mentor should also have explained to you that putting WHAT you did in
the log is totally moot... I mean irrelevant :) because I can get that
information from cvs diff. It's much more important to put _why_ you did
what you did in the cvs log.

Hope this helps,

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection