Re: Emacs-devel Digest, Vol 44, Issue 73

[Eric S. Raymond]

From: "Robert J. Chassell" <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:29:41 +0000 (UTC)
> Subject: minor typos in emacs.texi and files.texi
> To: address@hidden
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>

I applied all of your suggested changes except these:

> write tenses correctly
> 
>     from that of all other files in the system.  Later systems, beginning
>     with Subversion, are @dfn{changeset-based}; a checkin may include
>     changes to several files and that change set is treated as a unit by the
>     system.  Any comment associated with the change doesn't belong to any
>     one file, but is attached to the changeset itself.
> 
> should be
> 
>     from that of all other files in the system.  Later systems,
>     beginning with Subversion, were @dfn{changeset-based}; a checkin
>     included changes to several files and that change set was (and
>     still is) treated as a unit by the system.

Your point about tense consistency is formally correct, but I think
applying it here would be semantically misleading.  What we really want
here is a sort of past-extending-into-uncompleted-present construction
that English doesn't do well.  (Your linguistic trivium for the day,
if you didn't already know it, is that Russian and other Slavic
languages have a principle tense for this; it's called
"imperfective".)  I've rephrased as:

    Later systems, beginning with Subversion, became
    @dfn{changeset-based}; a checkin under these may include changes to
    several files and that change set is treated as a unit by the system.

The 'became' moves us from an aspect in which past tense is required to
one in which present is appropriate.

> You might also change from
> 
>     system.  Any comment associated with the change doesn't belong to any
>     one file, but is attached to the changeset itself.
> 
> to
> 
>     system.  No comment associated with a change belongs to any one
>     file, but is attached to the changeset itself.

Now reads "Any comment associated with the change belongs to no single
file, but is attached to the changeset itself.", which I think is
superior.

> in @subsubsection Concepts of Version Control
> 
>     there are lots of legacy repositories still to be dealt with at time of
>     writing in 2007.
> 
> shold be
> 
>     there are lots of legacy repositories still to be dealt with at
>     the time of writing in 2007.
> 
> that is to say, add `the' to `time of writing'; please don't ask me
> why `time' is considered as concrete as `maple tree'. 

I disagree with the premise and the implied conclusion.  It may be
that I'm too influenced by British English, in which this "the" would
definitely be omitted, but this is a case over which reasonable men may
differ and I'm going to continue leaving it out.

Thank you for the fine-toothed combing; it was useful.  I like having
my writing reviewed by someone who is just as constructively picky
about language as I am, but such people are all too rare.
-- 
                <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>