[Chris Friesen - Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:32:12AM -0600]
quoted text
> Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:54:19 +0100 (BST)
>> "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> +NOTE: Prior to 2.4.2-ac18 the NMI-oopser is enabled unconditionally
>>>> +on x86 SMP boxes.
>>>
>>> While you are at it: s/is/was/.
>> Erm - why ??
>> It is still true today that kernels < 2.4.2-ac8 have the NMI oopser
>> enabled.
>
> To my ear the phrase as written implies past tense for the author/reader 
> (i.e. "at points in time prior to the release of 2.4.2-ac18"), and thus 
> grates against "is".
>
> The following sounds better to me: "In kernels prior to 2.4.2-ac18 the 
> NMI-oopser is enabled..."  In this context the phrase itself is in the 
> present, but we point to past kernels.
>
> Chris
>

And the winner is? I'm not native English speaker so I can't select
a better candidate in {is,was} limited set.

		- Cyrill -
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/