On 10/31/2014 05:51 AM, Karel Zak wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 09:02:12PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014, at 02:09, JWP wrote: >>> On 10/27/2014 05:18 PM, Benno Schulenberg wrote: >>>> Since v2.26 >>>> .B hwclock >>>> does not update the Hardware Clock's drift factor in @ADJTIME_PATH@ by default. >>>> -It is necessary to use \fB\-\-update-drift\fR, with \fB\-\-set\fR or >>>> +It is necessary to use the option \fB\-\-update-drift\fR, with \fB\-\-set\fR or >>>> \fB\-\-systohc\fR, to force drift factor updates. >>> >>> The rest of the manual uses 'the --xxxx option'. >> >> Well, I can't explain, but in this case "the option --xxxx" is better. >> >>>> Since v2.26 >>>> .B hwclock \-\-hctosys >>>> -automatically compensates time read from the Hardware Clock to account for >>>> -systematic drift before using it to set the System Clock. Therefore, >>>> -\fB\-\-adjust\fR is no longer necessary during boot. This functionality makes >>>> -hwclock usable early in the boot process when the root filesystem is read-only. >>>> +automatically takes a systematic drift of the Hardware Clock into account, >>>> +setting the System Clock to the drift-compensated time. Therefore the option >>>> +\fB\-\-adjust\fR is no longer necessary during boot. This feature makes >>>> +.B hwclock >>>> +usable early on in the boot process when the root filesystem is read-only. >>> >>> "a systematic drift"? That entire phrase does not sound natural to me. >> >> :| >> >>> I think it is important to >>> stress that *the_time_read* from the Clock is what is being compensated as this is >>> a new behavior. >> >> Well, then suggest how exactly to phrase that. > > I'll wait for the final patch :-) > > Karel Karel and Benno, I did not intent to comment further on this, because I find discourse on human language illogical and frustrating. No doubt, that is why I am drawn to the language of machines, but there's no escaping strings;) I suppose it is impolite of me to leave the topic dangling though. The first issue seems so trivial as to not justify any debate. I will however, expand on my original comment: if there is no grammar rule to decide a style choice, then the super-class style rule of 'be consistent' should be applied. I do not find 'because I say so' to be a compelling argument. With regard to the second issue, I suggested 'how exactly to phrase that' when I edited it the first time. Unless it can be rewritten in a way that does not change its meaning, I feel it should remain as it is. So there you have my opinions; I will leave the matter in both of your hands to make a good choice. Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
