> [Randy Dunlap - Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 09:56:08AM -0700]
> | On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:51:25 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> |
> | > [Chris Friesen - Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:32:12AM -0600]
> | > > 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.
> |
> | Use the text that Chris suggested...
> |
> |
> | ---
> | ~Randy
> | Linux Plumbers Conference, 17-19 September 2008, Portland, Oregon USA
> |
http://linuxplumbersconf.org/
> |
>
> Ok, you choose ;)
>
> - Cyrill -