From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2285 invoked by alias); 9 Feb 2006 14:06:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 2269 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Feb 2006 14:06:26 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (HELO mtagate4.uk.ibm.com) (195.212.29.137) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:06:25 +0000 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate4.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k19E6Ml6063444 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:06:22 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.8) with ESMTP id k19E6LNA190360 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:06:21 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k19E6LfT007705 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:06:21 GMT Received: from d06ml065.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06ml065.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.138]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k19E6LVg007687 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:06:21 GMT In-Reply-To: <20060209124915.27064.qmail@sourceware.org> Subject: Re: [Bug translator/2308] stap messages errors Sensitivity: To: sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org Cc: systemtap@sources.redhat.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.1IBM February 19, 2004 Message-ID: From: Richard J Moore Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:06:00 -0000 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML065/06/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF247 | January 6, 2005) at 09/02/2006 14:06:20 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact systemtap-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: systemtap-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00456.txt.bz2 systemtap-owner@sourceware.org wrote on 09/02/2006 12:49:15: > > ------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2006-02-09 > 12:49 ------- > (In reply to comment #0) > > > 1) the term "probe point" should be specified as "probepoint". > It's a coined > > term [...] > > It also is an ordinary noun phrase. Prior dprobes usage does not > automatically > entitle it to full glued-together minted status. > It not a question of entitlement, but clarity. When we refer to a probpoint we are discussing a single concept not a generl "poiint" with an adjectival quality of "probe". The only debate should be whether "probe-point" or "probepoint" is preferred. Think about "breakpoint" vs "break point": the latter is far more general than the former. > > 2) the plural form of nouns that are preceded by a number should not be > > specified as (s) as in "3 error(s)". This is an illiterate usage. [...] > > It is just the age-old lazy, simple, and compact way. Feel free to commit a > reworded message. > > Even simpler and more lazy is not to do it :-) > -- > > > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2308 > > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.