Re: [RFC PATCH] Replacing "master-slave" terminology for pseudoterminals

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 7/30/20 5:16 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> I know what you mean. One reason for that verbosity is the need to
> clearly distinguish "pseudoterminal device/end" from "pseudoterminal
> device pair". It's hard to avoid being wordy there.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. My feeling is that as others
write this text in emails or discussions, we'll eventually all settle
on some other short form we find agreeable and then later we can adjust
the man pages to use that. Until then taking the lead to change this
language is the correct way forward.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.




[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Documentation]     [Netdev]     [Linux Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux