On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 12:58:54 +0000
"Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > Should the committer be interested, your patch applies cleanly
> > and the docs build as expected.
>
> Yeah, but cfbot accepted previous version. Did you have anything in
> your mind?
No. I'm letting the committer know everything I've checked
so that they can decide what they want to check.
> Hmm, what you said looked right. But as Peter pointed out [1], the
> fix seems too much. So I attached three version of patches. How do
> you think? For me, type C is best.
>
> A. A patch which completely follows your comments. The name is
> "v3-0001-...patch". Cfbot tests it.
> B. A patch which completely follows Peter's comments [1]. The name is
> "Peter_v3-....txt".
> C. A patch which follows both comments. Based on
> b, but some comments (Don't use the future tense, "Other
> characters"->"The bytes of other characters"...) were picked. The
> name is "Both_v3-....txt".
I also like C. Fewer words is better. So long
as nothing is left unsaid fewer words make for clarity.
However, in the last hunk, "of other than" does not read well.
Instead of writing
"and the bytes of other than printable ASCII characters"
you want "and the bytes that are not printable ASCII characters".
That would be my suggestion.
Regards,
Karl <kop@karlpinc.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein