@@ -1529,7 +1529,7 @@ dangling tree b24c2473f1fd3d91352a624795be026d64c8841f Dangling objects are not a problem. At worst they may take up a little extra disk space. They can sometimes provide a last-resort method of-recovery lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details. However, if+recovering lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details. However, if you want, you may remove them with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune option to gitlink:git-gc[1]:--
From: Andy Parkins <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:15
- "last-resort" is two words, not a conjoined word, it doesn't require
the hyphen
- "method of" is vulgar, "method for" is nicer
- "recovery" becomes "recovering" from Steve Hoelzer's original version
of this patch
- "if you want" is nicer as "if you wish"
- "you may" should be "you can"; "you may" is "you have permission to"
rather than "you can"'s "it is possible to"
Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <redacted>
---
My apologies for jumping on your patch, but when I read the context of your
change, I couldn't resist fixing some things around it too.
Documentation/user-manual.txt | 6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
@@ -1527,9 +1527,9 @@ dangling tree b24c2473f1fd3d91352a624795be026d64c8841f ------------------------------------------------- Dangling objects are not a problem. At worst they may take up a little-extra disk space. They can sometimes provide a last-resort method of-recovery lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details. However, if-you want, you may remove them with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune+extra disk space. They can sometimes provide a last resort method for+recovering lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details. However, if+you wish, you can remove them with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune option to gitlink:git-gc[1]: -------------------------------------------------
From: J. Bruce Fields <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:15
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:43:19PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
- "last-resort" is two words, not a conjoined word, it doesn't require
the hyphen
Right, but when you've got a couple words functioning together to modify
a following noun, the hyphen's pretty standard: "rosy-fingered dawn".
Is this case an exception? I suspect it's fine either way....
- "method of" is vulgar, "method for" is nicer
Reference?
- "recovery" becomes "recovering" from Steve Hoelzer's original version
of this patch
- "if you want" is nicer as "if you wish"
- "you may" should be "you can"; "you may" is "you have permission to"
rather than "you can"'s "it is possible to"
Fair enough, thanks.
What we really need is a complete recovery tutorial to stick in here
someplace. (One day git complains about a corrupt pack file. What do
you do?) What's been stopping me from doing it, besides time, is no
idea how to come up with a good example to work with.
--b.
From: Andy Parkins <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:15
On Tuesday 2007, June 12, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
You sound like you address somebody personally. However, your "To:"
only contains the list. Netiquette?
Apols; I made the patch with git-format-patch, which obviously didn't
know who I was replying to.
It was aimed at Steve Hoelzer, as it's his patch I enhanced (and
effectively stole :-)
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com
From: Andy Parkins <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:15
On Tuesday 2007, June 12, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:43:19PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
quoted
- "last-resort" is two words, not a conjoined word, it doesn't
require the hyphen
Right, but when you've got a couple words functioning together to
modify a following noun, the hyphen's pretty standard: "rosy-fingered
dawn". Is this case an exception? I suspect it's fine either way....
It's certainly common, I don't think that it's correct though. The
hyphen's is to form a new word from multiple other words; but often
these days it's just used to join two words that the author wanted
saying faster in his head. The test I always use is if the meaning
remains the same without the hyphen, it wasn't necessary.
Examples:
merry-go-round versus merry go round
editor-in-chief versus editor in chief
Both of the above loose their meaning when they don't have the hyphens.
"last-resort" doesn't need to be compound because separated it still
means "the resort that is last".
I don't say that it is a definitive _wrong_ as the meaning is not lost
nor modified; but I've always viewed English like programming - don't
add unnecessary complication.
quoted
- "method of" is vulgar, "method for" is nicer
Reference?
Please don't take "vulgar" to mean disgusting, I meant "common". Sorry
if that was offensive.
Preposition selection and use is highly localised. I will happily
accept if you don't agree. Here is the only reference I can find, but
it is certainly not definitive, not entirely about this subject...
http://mb.sparknotes.com/mb.epl?b=2437&m=1259471&t=355765&w=1
However, it does make the case that "of" is possessive, so a "method
of ..." means "a method that belongs to ...", so to my ears "a method
for" seems the better choice.
What we really need is a complete recovery tutorial to stick in here
someplace. (One day git complains about a corrupt pack file. What
do you do?) What's been stopping me from doing it, besides time, is
no idea how to come up with a good example to work with.
A big magnet on your hard disk? ;-)
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com
From: J. Bruce Fields <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:15
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:27:59PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
It's certainly common, I don't think that it's correct though.
In cases like this some seem to think it's actually required:
"Use a hyphen to connect two or more words functioning together
as an adjective before a noun."
(From p. 234 of "A Writer's Reference", 3rd ed., Diana Hacker--just what
I happen to have on my shelf.) I suppose it's there to help find the
modified noun when you're constructing modifiers out of multiple words
that aren't necessarily adjectives.
But whatever, I've no real objection to the patch.
Please don't take "vulgar" to mean disgusting, I meant "common". Sorry
if that was offensive.
Nah, just curious. "For" seems a little more precise in this case, so
fair enough.
quoted
What we really need is a complete recovery tutorial to stick in here
someplace. (One day git complains about a corrupt pack file. What
do you do?) What's been stopping me from doing it, besides time, is
no idea how to come up with a good example to work with.
From: David Kastrup <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:16
"J. Bruce Fields" [off-list ref] writes:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:43:19PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
quoted
- "last-resort" is two words, not a conjoined word, it doesn't require
the hyphen
Right, but when you've got a couple words functioning together to modify
a following noun, the hyphen's pretty standard: "rosy-fingered
dawn".
This rendition of ῥοδοδάκτυλος Ἠώς is an adjectivized verb construct,
like well-hung, good-natured, forward-looking, thinly-veiled (the
latter can be written as two words, too, however).
Is this case an exception? I suspect it's fine either way....
Nope. It was used in "a last-resort method", namely in the
adjectivized meaning. Without the hyphen, it would become the last of
some resort methods, quite something different (and nonsensical).
--
David Kastrup
From: Andy Parkins <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:16
On Wednesday 2007 June 13, David Kastrup wrote:
Nope. It was used in "a last-resort method", namely in the
adjectivized meaning. Without the hyphen, it would become the last of
some resort methods, quite something different (and nonsensical).
Agreed. I withdraw my objection.
Andy
--
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
andyparkins@gmail.com
From: Shawn O. Pearce <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:16
"J. Bruce Fields" [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:43:19PM +0100, Andy Parkins wrote:
quoted
- "recovery" becomes "recovering" from Steve Hoelzer's original version
of this patch
- "if you want" is nicer as "if you wish"
- "you may" should be "you can"; "you may" is "you have permission to"
rather than "you can"'s "it is possible to"
What we really need is a complete recovery tutorial to stick in here
someplace. (One day git complains about a corrupt pack file. What do
you do?) What's been stopping me from doing it, besides time, is no
idea how to come up with a good example to work with.
dd if=/dev/urandom of=.git/pack/pack-DEAD.pack bs=1 seek=12 count=512
Now run git-log. Its probably toast. The front of the packfile
is usually commits, and the first object is usually the most
recent commit. It starts at byte 12. ;-)
We actually do this in the test suite to verify that verify-pack will
detect the corruption. Recovering from it is a bit more interesting
and difficult.
The more common corruption is to repack away an important object
by accident in a shared object directory arrangement. Or just
havee your OS' "disk corruptor^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvirus scanner" delete
the thing. E.g. create a few commits, pick one out of git-log
and just rm its file in .git/objects/??. How do you get out of
that mess? ;-)
--
Shawn.