<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
If not commented on below, I agree with Max's opinions on the patch.<br>
<br>
Max Bowsher wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid07e701c5a31f$35ce8dd0$5308a8c0@chimaera"
type="cite">Index: appa.xml
<br>
===================================================================
<br>
--- appa.xml (revision 1614)
<br>
+++ appa.xml (working copy)
<br>
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
<br>
<title>Revision Numbers Are Different Now</title>
<br>
<br>
<para>In CVS, revision numbers are per-file. This is because
CVS
<br>
- uses RCS as a backend; each file has a corresponding RCS file in
<br>
+ stores its data in RCS files; each file has a corresponding RCS
file in
<br>
the repository, and the repository is roughly laid out according
<br>
to the structure of your project tree.</para>
<br>
<br>
<br>
New wording as suggested by Ben. OK to apply?
<br>
</blockquote>
+1<br>
<blockquote cite="mid07e701c5a31f$35ce8dd0$5308a8c0@chimaera"
type="cite">Index: ch02.xml
<br>
===================================================================
<br>
--- ch02.xml (revision 1614)
<br>
+++ ch02.xml (working copy)
<br>
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@
<br>
example, a client can ask historical questions like,
<quote>What
<br>
did this directory contain last Wednesday?</quote> or
<quote>Who
<br>
was the last person to change this file, and what changes did
<br>
- they make?</quote> These are the sorts of questions that
are at
<br>
+ he make?</quote> These are the sorts of questions that are
at
<br>
the heart of any <firstterm>version control
system</firstterm>:
<br>
systems that are designed to record and track changes to data
<br>
over time.
<br>
<br>
The use of 'they' as a gender-agnostic singular pronoun is pretty
common, if perhaps not strictly grammatical. I would leave it.
<br>
</blockquote>
We have tried to us "he" and "she" throughout the book instead of
"they". +1 on making this change (and others like it).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid07e701c5a31f$35ce8dd0$5308a8c0@chimaera"
type="cite">Index: ch04.xml
<br>
===================================================================
<br>
--- ch04.xml (revision 1614)
<br>
+++ ch04.xml (working copy)
<br>
@@ -644,7 +644,7 @@
<br>
tree-changes.</para>
<br>
</footnote>
<br>
The <command>svn merge</command> command,
however, can express
<br>
- tree-changes by directly applying them to your working
<br>
+ changes in tree structure and properties by directly
applying them to your working
<br>
copy.</para>
<br>
<br>
</sidebar>
<br>
<br>
De-jargonizing! Good!
<br>
</blockquote>
+1<br>
<blockquote cite="mid07e701c5a31f$35ce8dd0$5308a8c0@chimaera"
type="cite">@@ -885,7 +885,7 @@
<br>
Somebody can then run <command>svn log
-r9238</command> to
<br>
read about the exact changeset which fixed the bug, and run
<br>
<command>svn diff -r9237:9238</command> to see
the patch
<br>
- itself. And Subversion's merge command also uses revision
<br>
+ itself. And Subversion's
<command>merge</command> command also uses revision
<br>
numbers. You can merge specific changesets from one branch
<br>
to another by naming them in the merge arguments:
<br>
<command>svn merge -r9237:9238</command> would
merge
<br>
<br>
Here we need to determine a convention. Does a subcommand name without
a leading "svn" go in <command/> tags? Think especially of the
case of "diff" which is a unix command in its own right. Elsewhere in
the book, these have been put into <literal/> tags... which might
actually end up formatted the same, now I think about it. Further
instances of this kind of change are snipped from this email.
<br>
</blockquote>
Yep, these are <literal>s.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid07e701c5a31f$35ce8dd0$5308a8c0@chimaera"
type="cite">@@ -1010,18 +1010,18 @@
<br>
...
<br>
notice that they're unrelated and first attempt to delete
<br>
the old file, then add the new file; you would see a
<br>
- <literal>D foo.c</literal> followed by a
<literal>A
<br>
- foo.c</literal>.</para>
<br>
+ <literal>D foo.c</literal>
followed by a
<br>
+
<literal>A foo.c</literal>.</para>
<br>
<br>
Good. Do we need to check for more cases like this?
<br>
</blockquote>
That is a good catch, but I disagree with the fix. I think that chunk
should be reworked to keep screen output out of the main paragraph:<br>
<blockquote>...notice that they're unrelated and first attempt to
delete the old file, then add the new file; the output indicate a
deletion followed by an add:<br>
<blockquote><tt>...<br>
D foo.c<br>
A foo.c<br>
</tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid07e701c5a31f$35ce8dd0$5308a8c0@chimaera"
type="cite">Index: ch05.xml
<br>
===================================================================
<br>
--- ch05.xml (revision 1614)
<br>
+++ ch05.xml (working copy)
<br>
@@ -1120,7 +1120,7 @@
<br>
other queries, displaying subsets of bits of information
<br>
we've mentioned previously, reporting which paths were
<br>
modified in a given revision or transaction, showing textual
<br>
- and property differences made to files and directories, and
<br>
+ and property differences made to files, symlinks and
directories, and
<br>
so on. The following is a brief description of the current
<br>
list of subcommands accepted by
<command>svnlook</command>,
<br>
and the output of those subcommands:</para>
<br>
<br>
Symlinks can sort of be considered a kind of file... and leaving it out
here avoids confusing people who don't know about symlinks.
<br>
</blockquote>
Yeah, let's keep it simple.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid07e701c5a31f$35ce8dd0$5308a8c0@chimaera"
type="cite">Index: ch06.xml
<br>
===================================================================
<br>
--- ch06.xml (revision 1614)
<br>
+++ ch06.xml (working copy)
<br>
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
<br>
<br>
<para>A Subversion repository can be accessed simultaneously
by
<br>
clients running on the same machine on which the repository
<br>
- resides using the <literal><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="file:///">file:///</a></literal>
method. But the
<br>
+ resides using the <literal><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="file://">file://</a></literal>
method. But the
<br>
typical Subversion setup involves a single server machine being
<br>
accessed from clients on computers all over the
office—or,
<br>
perhaps, all over the world.</para>
<br>
<br>
I think this should stay as is. People who don't care about the details
will be more likely to get it right, and people who do care will
understand that the third slash is in recognition of the fact that the
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="file://">file://</a> URL scheme authority component should be left empty.
<br>
</blockquote>
Disagree. +1 on the change.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>