From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750710AbWF2NgL (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:36:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750737AbWF2NgL (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:36:11 -0400 Received: from pih-relay05.plus.net ([212.159.14.132]:38340 "EHLO pih-relay05.plus.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750710AbWF2NgJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:36:09 -0400 From: Alistair John Strachan To: Paolo Ornati Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: remove duplicate cleanups Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:35:39 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: jensmh@gmx.de, Linux Kernel Mailing List , trivial@kernel.org, Paolo Ornati References: <20060629134002.1b06257c@localhost> <200606291339.11733.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> <20060629150545.167c0abb@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20060629150545.167c0abb@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200606291435.39879.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 29 June 2006 14:05, Paolo Ornati wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:39:11 +0100 > > Alistair John Strachan wrote: > > On Thursday 29 June 2006 13:12, Paolo Ornati wrote: > > > On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:02:18 +0200 > > > > > > jensmh@gmx.de wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/block/as-iosched.txt > > > > > b/Documentation/block/as-iosched.txt index 6f47332..ed24cdd 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/block/as-iosched.txt > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/block/as-iosched.txt > > > > > @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ or if the next request in the queue is " > > > > > just completed request, it is dispatched immediately. Otherwise, > > > > > statistics (average think time, average seek distance) on the > > > > > process that submitted the just completed request are examined. If > > > > > it seems -likely that that process will submit another request > > > > > soon, and that > > > > > > > > old version is correct, I think. > > > > > > me too (I've exagerated a bit in killing duplicates ;) > > > > "that the process" > > Are you sure? > To me it makes more sense the old one when read in the context. Actually the context made me think otherwise, look: "Otherwise, statistics (average think time, average seek distance) on **the** process that submitted the just completed.." [snip] > > I disagree. The cleanup's either an improvement, or the sentence should > > be rewritten, "Before continuing with how to attach, detect and unload > > the framebuffer.." > > > > I think if you're going to improve the quality of documentation, there's > > no harm to make minor grammatical improvements. Duplicate words are > > almost always a bad thing, and they really disrupt reading flow. > > Maybe, but I'll probably make more danger than anything. > > For now I just want to eliminate the wrong duplicates and keep the > correct ones. It's arguable whether there are any "correct" duplicates in a well formed sentence in English. However, I'm inclined to agree with "as few changes as possible", so disregard. -- Cheers, Alistair. Third year Computer Science undergraduate. 1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.