You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Chris Pepper <pe...@reppep.com> on 2004/10/05 01:12:13 UTC
[PATCH] HACKING: More language clean-up
* HACKING: Clean up more language nits.
s/commit-access/commit access/
Include missing trailing slash on http://apr.apache.org (slashes are used
sometimes and skipped sometimes, but they *are* part of the real URL).
Clarify that the key for secure programming is developer understanding,
not necessarily further education.
Removed 'staked' from 'staked ownership', as it's neither formal nor
complete.
Additional linguistic tweaks.
Re: [PATCH] HACKING: More language clean-up
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Committed in r11402. Thanks. (Issue 2097, containing the original
patch, has already been closed.)
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] HACKING: More language clean-up
Posted by Chris Pepper <pe...@reppep.com>.
At 5:56 PM +0100 2004/10/14, Julian Foad wrote:
>Thanks for your explanations, Chris.
>
>Chris Pepper wrote:
>> As I read it, the thrust is that everybody needs to learn
>>secure programming. I consider this likely to irritate programmers
>>who feel they are already educated about secure programming, and
>>that my wording is less likely to raise hackles, while making the
>>same point.
>
>I understand you now. That's fair enough.
>
>> It's not terrible as-is, though, so just leave it.
>
>No, I'm happy to change it now that I see why.
>
>> "staked ownership" is sloppy idiom to me; one stakes a claim to
>>ownership. Cleaner phrasing would be "People might be unnecessarily
>>hesitant if someone appears to have staked a personal claim to the
>>file.", but that's not great either. If you don't like the change,
>>just skip it too.
>
>I see what you mean, and actually I like your latest suggestion best
>of all. I don't know what's not great about it. I'd like to use it
>if it's OK with you.
Fine with me.
Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] HACKING: More language clean-up
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Thanks for your explanations, Chris.
Chris Pepper wrote:
> As I read it, the thrust is that everybody needs to learn secure
> programming. I consider this likely to irritate programmers who feel
> they are already educated about secure programming, and that my wording
> is less likely to raise hackles, while making the same point.
I understand you now. That's fair enough.
> It's not terrible as-is, though, so just leave it.
No, I'm happy to change it now that I see why.
> "staked ownership" is sloppy idiom to me; one stakes a claim to
> ownership. Cleaner phrasing would be "People might be unnecessarily
> hesitant if someone appears to have staked a personal claim to the
> file.", but that's not great either. If you don't like the change, just
> skip it too.
I see what you mean, and actually I like your latest suggestion best of
all. I don't know what's not great about it. I'd like to use it if
it's OK with you.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] HACKING: More language clean-up
Posted by Michael W Thelen <th...@cs.utah.edu>.
Chris Pepper wrote:
>>> Thanks for the patch. I've filed it as issue #2097:
>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2097
>
> I've cast a vote for it.
>
> "No responses on the dev list." on that page confuses me a bit, as
> both Julian and Michael have responded to the list...
At the time I filed the patch issue, no one had responded. :-)
> So how should I continue with language patches? Post them to this
> list, and if there are no major concerns, they go it (possibly with
> tweaking), while patches with stronger reservations become issues?
Yep, keep posting them to the list. If a patch goes for too long
without a response (or with mixed responses), I'll file it as an issue
so it's not forgotten.
> This is a little awkward, as I'd like to provide unrelated patches
> to the same files; maintaining multiple patches against the same file(s)
> is hard to keep track of. I guess I'll have to learn about branches, but
> not this week...
It can get a little hard to keep track of, but usually unrelated patches
don't touch the same parts of a file, so applying them separately (even
out of order) isn't too big a deal. If you're making unrelated changes,
you'll want to do them one at a time. Make one set of changes, create
the patch with "svn diff", then revert your changes, wash, rinse, repeat.
--
Michael W Thelen
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with
potatoes. -- Douglas Adams
Re: [PATCH] HACKING: More language clean-up
Posted by Chris Pepper <pe...@reppep.com>.
At 3:05 PM +0100 2004/10/12, Julian Foad wrote:
>Michael W Thelen wrote:
>>Chris Pepper wrote:
>>> Clarify that the key for secure programming is developer understanding,
>>>not necessarily further education.
>
>I don't see that the meaning was unclear before. Not that your
>replacement is worse, but I don't see the need to change it. Surely
>it's obvious that if a developer has already been educated
>sufficiently in the subject, then this shouldn't be read as implying
>that he still needs more. This is aimed at new readers of the
>HACKING file, and it is reasonable to assume that most of them are
>not "educated" to the desired degree in this subject. Or maybe you
>don't like the word "education" because it implies a formal,
>structured activity, whereas any means of learning is of course
>acceptable.
>
>I won't stop you changing it if you're sure that you are improving
>it, but I'm not sure.
As I read it, the thrust is that everybody needs to learn
secure programming. I consider this likely to irritate programmers
who feel they are already educated about secure programming, and that
my wording is less likely to raise hackles, while making the same
point.
It's not terrible as-is, though, so just leave it.
>>> Removed 'staked' from 'staked ownership', as it's neither formal nor
>>>complete.
>
>I don't understand your objection. What isn't formal or complete?
>The staking of ownership? This is talking about staking of
>ownership as a possible impression on a new reader, not as something
>that really existed. Note that "appears to have staked" is the verb
>phrase, and "ownership" the noun; were you reading it as "appears to
>have" and "staked ownership"? The wordings "appears to have staked
>ownership on the file" and "appears to have ownership of the file"
>mean effectively the same to me, but with the former (original) case
>additionally conveying the desired impression of "staking" being the
>writing of the "owner's" name in the file with intent to claim the
>file as his/her own.
>
>So I disagree with this change.
Here's the diff:
file). This is to discourage territoriality -- even when a file
has only one author, we want to make sure others feel free to
make changes. People might be unnecessarily hesitant if someone
- appears to have staked ownership on the file.
+ appears to have ownership of the file.
"staked ownership" is sloppy idiom to me; one stakes a claim
to ownership. Cleaner phrasing would be "People might be
unnecessarily hesitant if someone appears to have staked a personal
claim to the file.", but that's not great either. If you don't like
the change, just skip it too.
>>Thanks for the patch. I've filed it as issue #2097:
>>http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2097
I've cast a vote for it.
"No responses on the dev list." on that page confuses me a
bit, as both Julian and Michael have responded to the list...
So how should I continue with language patches? Post them to
this list, and if there are no major concerns, they go it (possibly
with tweaking), while patches with stronger reservations become
issues?
This is a little awkward, as I'd like to provide unrelated
patches to the same files; maintaining multiple patches against the
same file(s) is hard to keep track of. I guess I'll have to learn
about branches, but not this week...
Thx,
Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] HACKING: More language clean-up
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Michael W Thelen wrote:
> Chris Pepper wrote:
>
>> * HACKING: Clean up more language nits.
>> s/commit-access/commit access/
Yes.
>> Include missing trailing slash on http://apr.apache.org (slashes are used
>> sometimes and skipped sometimes, but they *are* part of the real URL).
OK, though that's not as important as including the slash when the URL ends in a subdirectory. But since you're making other changes to this file you might as well fix this.
>> Clarify that the key for secure programming is developer understanding,
>> not necessarily further education.
I don't see that the meaning was unclear before. Not that your replacement is worse, but I don't see the need to change it. Surely it's obvious that if a developer has already been educated sufficiently in the subject, then this shouldn't be read as implying that he still needs more. This is aimed at new readers of the HACKING file, and it is reasonable to assume that most of them are not "educated" to the desired degree in this subject. Or maybe you don't like the word "education" because it implies a formal, structured activity, whereas any means of learning is of course acceptable.
I won't stop you changing it if you're sure that you are improving it, but I'm not sure.
>> Removed 'staked' from 'staked ownership', as it's neither formal nor
>> complete.
I don't understand your objection. What isn't formal or complete? The staking of ownership? This is talking about staking of ownership as a possible impression on a new reader, not as something that really existed. Note that "appears to have staked" is the verb phrase, and "ownership" the noun; were you reading it as "appears to have" and "staked ownership"? The wordings "appears to have staked ownership on the file" and "appears to have ownership of the file" mean effectively the same to me, but with the former (original) case additionally conveying the desired impression of "staking" being the writing of the "owner's" name in the file with intent to claim the file as his/her own.
So I disagree with this change.
>> Additional linguistic tweaks.
Yes. ("a" -> "an"; "can into" -> "can go into".)
- Julian
> Thanks for the patch. I've filed it as issue #2097:
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2097
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] HACKING: More language clean-up
Posted by Michael W Thelen <th...@cs.utah.edu>.
Chris Pepper wrote:
> * HACKING: Clean up more language nits.
> s/commit-access/commit access/
> Include missing trailing slash on http://apr.apache.org (slashes are used
> sometimes and skipped sometimes, but they *are* part of the real URL).
> Clarify that the key for secure programming is developer understanding,
> not necessarily further education.
> Removed 'staked' from 'staked ownership', as it's neither formal nor
> complete.
> Additional linguistic tweaks.
Thanks for the patch. I've filed it as issue #2097:
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2097
--
Michael W Thelen
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with
potatoes. -- Douglas Adams