| 1 |
On 29/03/13 12:24, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Samuli Suominen posted on Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:09:27 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> This feature will also replace the functionality of sys-apps/biosdevname |
| 5 |
>> which you should uninstall. However, you can still keep using |
| 6 |
>> sys-apps/biosdevname if you want. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I'd suggest... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This feature can optionally replace... can uninstall. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> IOW... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> s/will also/can optionally/ |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> s/should/can/ |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It sounds less menacing than your suggested wording, making it clearer |
| 20 |
> that it's an optional replacement and lessening the apparent conflict and |
| 21 |
> possible confusion with the next sentence saying it can still be used if |
| 22 |
> desired. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I'd say that's a particularly good idea given the sensitivity around the |
| 25 |
> "all engulfing gray goo" that systemd has seemed to many to have become. |
| 26 |
> Given that upstream specifically designed this feature to cooperate with |
| 27 |
> existing biosdevname installations, let's not unnecessarily poke that |
| 28 |
> hornet's nest by implying otherwise, even if the next sentence /does/ |
| 29 |
> basically say it's an optional change anyway. =:^/ |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
OK, new one attached, should be better |
Archives