Quoting Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Christian Perrier wrote: > > +#flag:translate!:3 > > _Description: Commit changed files in /etc to git? > > - etckeeper has detected that /etc contains uncommitted files > > - or other changes. It's best to have everything in /etc committed > > - to git before running apt. etckeeper can add any new files listed below, > > - and commit all the changed files for you. > > + The /etc directory contains uncommitted files > > + or other changes. All files in /etc should be committed > > + to git before running APT. The following files may be added > > + automatically now: > > There are a couple of problems with this change: > > - It makes it seem more important that files in /etc be committed than > it really is. The worst that can result from them not being committed > is them being committed with unrelated changes later. That's why I > used the "it's best.." wording.
Would "it is recommended that all files..." be more suitable?
> - It's not accurate to say that the git-status output shows files that may
> be added. It might show such files, it might show files that will be
> removed, or renamed, or whatever. etckeeper will only handle adding
> new files and committing changed files, which is why I was careful to
> say just that.
>
The /etc directory contains uncommitted files
or other changes. It is recommended that all files in /etc should be committed
to git before running APT. Added and changed files listed below can
be committed automatically:
.
${STATUS}
Does that fit better ?
> > -_Description: git commit failed
> > - etckeeper failed to commit changes in /etc using git.
> > - You may want to resolve the uncommitted changes by hand before continuing.
> > +_Description: Commit failed
> > + An attempt to commit /etc changes to git failed.
> > + .
> > + You should manually resolve the issues with the uncommitted changes
> > + before continuing.
>
> Again since at worst a commit failure can only lead to some more changes
> stacking up with the current uncommitted ones, resolving it is a "may",
> and not a "should".
OK, changed
>
> > -Description: store /etc in git
> > +Description: tool to keep /etc changes in git
>
> I am fond of my nice simple "store /etc in git", and I don't feel that
> it's a sentence fragement of the sort that it makes sense to reword.
> My description is not saying "[implicit package name here] storeS /etc
> in git". It's saying that if you want to store /etc in git, you've found
> the right package to do that.
OK. I'm not entirely convinced but you have the last call on it as it
seems obvious that you took care to word it the way you feel it should
be.
>
> > + The etckeeper program is a collection of tools to let /etc be stored in a
> > git
>
> Is it a program, or is it a collection of tools?
>
> Anyway, there's only one /usr/bin program involved, so "collection of
> tools" is wrong.
OK. Back to "is a tool"....
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
