| [09:07] <mpt> What's the appropriate verb for dismantling a RAID array, so that its disks/partitions are available for individual use? | |
| [09:08] <mpt> "Dismantle"? | |
| [09:08] <mpt> "Abolish"? | |
| [11:25] <xnox> mpt: --stop The devices should be active md arrays which will be | |
| [11:25] <xnox> deactivated, as long as they are not currently in use. | |
| [11:25] <xnox> but | |
| [11:26] <xnox> i'd rather use the inverse term. Assemble & Disassemble | |
| [11:26] <xnox> but in actual fact you should add more warning | |
| [11:26] <xnox> e.g. "Assemble & Destroy" | |
| [11:26] <xnox> because all data will be lost. | |
| [11:30] <mpt> I think that would be better as the subtitle for the next Avengers movie | |
| [11:34] <ogra_> could we combine the two ? | |
| [11:34] * ogra_ wouldnt mind watching avengers while partitioning | |
| [11:35] <xnox> ogra_: we can always ship a customized ubuntu-slideshow package, possibly playing a movie or something like that =) | |
| [11:35] <ogra_> heh | |
| [12:43] <xnox> mpt: debconf is not handling utf-8 characters well. So instead of "You’ll choose a security key in the next step." I will have "You will ..." | |
| [12:44] <mpt> xnox, why is it debconf at all? | |
| [12:44] <xnox> mpt: don't ask.... internal implementation detail of how these whole translations are done..... | |
| [12:45] <xnox> or possibly a mistake of assuming ASCII for English.... | |
| [12:45] <xnox> a minor bug for laters =) | |
| [12:45] <mpt> xnox, sounds to me like you're trying too hard to reuse strings | |
| [12:50] <xnox> mpt: well we have Gtk+ and Qt interfaces... | |
| [12:52] <mpt> That doesn't mean it needs to be a @$#%!ing debconf prompt | |
| [12:52] <mpt> (excuse me, that was directed at debconf, not at you:-) | |
| [12:56] <mpt> xnox, ok, I just talked this over with ev and he explained why we use debconf | |
| [12:56] <mpt> xnox, but he also pointed out that Ubiquity is translated into lots of languages, so there shouldn't be a problem with Unicode | |
| [12:57] <xnox> hm... ev: so I am using a UTF-8 character in the actuall "C" locale debconf template. | |
| [12:57] <xnox> and it ends up as question mark boxes in the UI. | |
| [13:02] <infinity> Unicode is fine, but not in the C template. | |
| [13:02] <infinity> (Why do people insist on unicode apostrophes?) | |
| [13:04] <infinity> xnox: The C templates have to work with non-unicode locales and debconf frontends, so they really are ASCII. That's not likely to change. | |
| [13:04] <infinity> xnox: But, it's not rocket science to s/’/'/ surely? | |
| [13:05] <infinity> That said, it's probably better style to not use contractions anyway. | |
| [13:05] <xnox> mpt: ^^^^ enjoy the above reply. | |
| [13:05] <xnox> infinity: but it is possible to translated into en_GB with UTF-8 apostrophe right?! | |
| [13:05] <infinity> Non-native speakers often find contractions rather confusing, especially 'll | |
| [13:06] <infinity> xnox: Sure, as long as the C string has ', the translations can have ☭ for all I care. | |
| [15:06] <mpt> infinity, we prefer proper apostrophes 80% because it's the right thing to do, and 20% to demonstrate to independent developers the level of care we'd like them to take too. | |
| [15:06] <mpt> But, if the choice is between "you'll" and "you will", ehhhh | |
| [15:07] <infinity> mpt: Well, see my note above about foreign speakers often finding contractions confusing. | |
| [15:07] <infinity> mpt: Don't assume that everyone installing in English speaks English natively. | |
| [15:08] <infinity> "'ll" and "'ve" are the two worst offenders for confusing non-native speakers. | |
| [15:09] <infinity> mpt: Anyhow, I take exception with the "right thing to do" comment, especially when you add the "example to other developers" bit, since "the right thing to do for C strings" is never to use non-ASCII characters. :P | |
| [15:09] <mpt> infinity, we use contractions in other places too: "It’s safer to connect to AC power before updating", "This window isn’t closing because the application Foo has stopped responding." | |
| [15:10] <infinity> mpt: Oh, I know we use them all over. It was just a style point. And 's and n't aren't nearly as confusing to people as 'll and 've, since the latter two involve verb conjugation. | |
| [15:10] <mpt> But, fair point on someone installing being less likely to be fluent in the language they're installing in than someone using other parts of the OS. | |
| [15:10] <infinity> To a non-native speaker, a sentence with 'll or 've appears to have no verb. | |
| [15:11] <infinity> (Or, appears to no verb?) | |
| [15:12] <mpt> 'll always comes before a verb, but I get your point | |
| [15:12] <mpt> it's hiding the auxiliary | |
| [15:13] <infinity> Fair point. I suppose the odd cases where will isn't a modifier would never use a contraction, but you get the point anyway. ;) | |
| [15:13] <infinity> (Wow, try saying "I'll your head to explode" out loud, it's slightly hilarious) | |
| [15:15] <mpt> "Will you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?" "I'll." | |
| [15:15] <infinity> Suddenly, I need to get married, just to say this. | |
| [15:18] <xnox> mpt: isn't it "do you take..."? | |
| [15:18] <mpt> It varies. | |
| [15:18] <xnox> ok | |
| [15:25] <infinity> Yeah, "I will" versus "I do" seems very regional. | |
| === ev_ is now known as ev | |
| === ev_ is now known as ev | |
| === JanC_ is now known as JanC | |