svn commit: r301497 - in head: databases/rubygem-dm-migrations deskutils/libgcal deskutils/p5-ZConf- [...] [ID#2012072509000189]

[Carlo Strub]

07/25/2012 05:00 - Doug Barton wrote:

> On 07/24/2012 19:46, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Now that you've mentioned it, yes, we have a large diversity in using
> > indefinite article in the beginning of COMMENT line.  I would also want us
> > to settle on some standard.  If you say it should be dropped, so let it be.
> 
> Oh how I wish I had such power. :)
> 
> The rule has always been "No article at the beginning of the COMMENT."
> Unfortunately not only is TPH insufficiently clear on this point, the
> actual (long-time historical) example given is misleading in the sense
> that it seems to not only allow, but to encourage an indefinite article.
> The specific usage in the case of the port referenced would be allowed
> because it's a whimsical description of what the port does, rather than
> a description of the port itself. However, it's still a painfully bad
> example.
> 
> I would gladly punch up this page of the handbook if there is consensus
> to do so.
> 
> Doug
> 
> -- 
> 
>     Change is hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Go on with your improvements for the standards. I totally agree.

Thank you very much for your additional comments in an earlier mail. There is so much to do in COMMENTS, its incredible. I have started to implement the "," where it applies and have deleted where it does not belong... I will not touch the articles for the moment. Although I agree that they don't belong there, it has to be postponed until I have fixed the most important other typos.

Thanks again for the flowers. I hope, I didn't make anybody unhappy about my changes.

Carlo



--
Carlo Strub
Ports committer
--