From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 28 03:15:01 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Sep 2012 07:15:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59690 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THUmq-0004GP-Tu for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:15:01 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35552) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THQZf-0006Vl-Tc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:45:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THQZX-00006W-Vs for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:45:00 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:38765) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THQZX-00006S-St for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:44:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48848) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THQZW-0003pp-O9 for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:44:59 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THQZU-00005l-UJ for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:44:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.derm.qld.gov.au ([203.8.131.102]:37965) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THQZU-0008W6-99 for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:44:56 -0400 Received: from ladel042.lands.resnet.qg (ladel042.lands.resnet.qg [172.19.7.1]) by mx1.derm.qld.gov.au (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q8S2idLD020290 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:44:39 +1000 Received: from CHQFOLDERS.lands.resnet.qg (chqfolders.lands.resnet.qg) by ladel042.lands.resnet.qg (Clearswift SMTPRS 5.3.4) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:44:39 +1000 Received: from MINMAIL5.lands.resnet.qg ([10.2.220.55]) by CHQFOLDERS.lands.resnet.qg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:44:38 +1000 Received: from 10.0.88.10 ([10.0.88.10]) by MINMAIL5.lands.resnet.qg ([10.2.220.55]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:44:38 +0000 Received: from ncp21000 by minmail5.lands.resnet.qg; 28 Sep 2012 12:44:39 +1000 Subject: nice(1) man page, bad wording From: David Diggles To: bug-coreutils@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1348800278.14619.340.camel@ncp21000> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.305 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:44:39 +1000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2012 02:44:38.0968 (UTC) FILETIME=[3440A380:01CD9D23] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:14:59 -0400 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) DESCRIPTION Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process scheduling. With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses range from -20 (most favorable scheduling) to 19 (least favorable). Favorable to what? It really does not explain, since it can be interpreted in opposite ways. Please use words like higher and lower priority. -- David Diggles Computer Systems Officer, Spatial Information Telephone 07 3170 5810 Level 4, Block B, Ecosciences Precinct Joe Baker St (41 Boggo Rd) Dutton Park, 4102, Australia ------------------------------ The information in this email together with any attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. There is no waiver of any confidentiality/privilege by your inadvertent receipt of this material. Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this email message is prohibited, unless as a necessary part of Departmental business. If you have received this message in error, you are asked to inform the sender as quickly as possible and delete this message and any copies of this message from your computer and/or your computer system network. ------------------------------ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 28 09:25:40 2012 Received: (at 12530) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Sep 2012 13:25:40 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59968 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THaZX-0006YM-UF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:25:40 -0400 Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com ([62.134.46.9]:47698) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THaZW-0006YE-2N for 12530@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:25:39 -0400 Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id EBEE71EB8527; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:25:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from MCHP02MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.4.26]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:25:26 +0200 From: "Voelker, Bernhard" To: David Diggles , "12530@debbugs.gnu.org" <12530@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: RE: bug#12530: nice(1) man page, bad wording Thread-Topic: bug#12530: nice(1) man page, bad wording Thread-Index: AQHNnXnqkANDA6VbPkKX36YDWFO61Zefu8RQ Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:25:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1348800278.14619.340.camel@ncp21000> In-Reply-To: <1348800278.14619.340.camel@ncp21000> Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12530 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) David Diggles wrote (Friday, September 28, 2012 4:45 AM) > DESCRIPTION > Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process > scheduling. With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses > range from -20 > (most favorable scheduling) to 19 (least favorable). > > Favorable to what? It really does not explain, since it can be > interpreted in opposite ways. Please use words like higher and lower > priority. Hello to Brisbane! Thanks for the report. "Favorable" means the kernel will favor this process before it will take "least favorable" processes into account for scheduling. I don't think the words "higher"/"lower" will bring clarity to it, maybe it'd even be worse because a higher nice number leads to lower priority. What about a stronger term like "aggressive scheduling"? Have a nice day, Berny From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 28 10:25:53 2012 Received: (at 12530) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Sep 2012 14:25:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60615 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THbVo-00086a-KQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:25:52 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21254) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THbVi-00086A-RD for 12530@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:25:48 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8SEPZJj017538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:25:35 -0400 Received: from [10.36.116.34] (ovpn-116-34.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.34]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8SEPVon009860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:25:33 -0400 Message-ID: <5065B35B.7040901@draigBrady.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:25:31 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig_Brady?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Voelker, Bernhard" Subject: Re: bug#12530: nice(1) man page, bad wording References: <1348800278.14619.340.camel@ncp21000> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx1.redhat.com id q8SEPZJj017538 X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12530 Cc: David Diggles , "12530-done@debbugs.gnu.org" <12530@debbugs.gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) On 09/28/2012 02:25 PM, Voelker, Bernhard wrote: > David Diggles wrote (Friday, September 28, 2012 4:45 AM) > >> DESCRIPTION >> Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process >> scheduling. With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses >> range from -20 >> (most favorable scheduling) to 19 (least favorable). >> >> Favorable to what? It really does not explain, since it can be >> interpreted in opposite ways. Please use words like higher and lower >> priority. > > Hello to Brisbane! > > Thanks for the report. > > "Favorable" means the kernel will favor this process before > it will take "least favorable" processes into account for > scheduling. > > I don't think the words "higher"/"lower" will bring clarity > to it, maybe it'd even be worse because a higher nice number > leads to lower priority. > > What about a stronger term like "aggressive scheduling"? Well with relative terms, it's best to state what they're relative to, so I'll apply something like this, as the wording is ambiguous. thanks! P=E1draig. diff --git a/src/nice.c b/src/nice.c index 1a90320..12d0b0f 100644 --- a/src/nice.c +++ b/src/nice.c @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ usage (int status) printf (_("\ Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process scheduling= .\n\ With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses range from\n\ -%d (most favorable scheduling) to %d (least favorable).\n\ +%d (least favorable to the system) to %d (least favorable to the process= ).\n\ \n\ -n, --adjustment=3DN add integer N to the niceness (default 10)\n\ "), From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 28 12:46:45 2012 Received: (at 12530) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Sep 2012 16:46:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60722 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THdi8-0003om-V9 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:46:45 -0400 Received: from mx.meyering.net ([88.168.87.75]:38232) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THdi5-0003od-S3 for 12530@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:46:43 -0400 Received: from rho.meyering.net (rho.meyering.net [127.0.0.1]) by rho.meyering.net (Acme Bit-Twister) with ESMTP id 4C2B760099; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:46:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Jim Meyering To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig?= Brady Subject: Re: bug#12530: nice(1) man page, bad wording In-Reply-To: <5065B35B.7040901@draigBrady.com> (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22P=E1drai?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?g?= Brady"'s message of "Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:25:31 +0100") References: <1348800278.14619.340.camel@ncp21000> <5065B35B.7040901@draigBrady.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:46:29 +0200 Message-ID: <87d316yu1m.fsf@rho.meyering.net> Lines: 79 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12530 Cc: David Diggles , "12530-done@debbugs.gnu.org" <12530@debbugs.gnu.org>, "Voelker, Bernhard" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.7 (--) P=E1draig Brady wrote: > On 09/28/2012 02:25 PM, Voelker, Bernhard wrote: >> David Diggles wrote (Friday, September 28, 2012 4:45 AM) >> >>> DESCRIPTION >>> Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process >>> scheduling. With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses >>> range from -20 >>> (most favorable scheduling) to 19 (least favorable). >>> >>> Favorable to what? It really does not explain, since it can be >>> interpreted in opposite ways. Please use words like higher and lower >>> priority. >> >> Hello to Brisbane! >> >> Thanks for the report. >> >> "Favorable" means the kernel will favor this process before >> it will take "least favorable" processes into account for >> scheduling. >> >> I don't think the words "higher"/"lower" will bring clarity >> to it, maybe it'd even be worse because a higher nice number >> leads to lower priority. >> >> What about a stronger term like "aggressive scheduling"? > > Well with relative terms, it's best to state what they're relative to, > so I'll apply something like this, as the wording is ambiguous. > > thanks! > P=E1draig. > > diff --git a/src/nice.c b/src/nice.c > index 1a90320..12d0b0f 100644 > --- a/src/nice.c > +++ b/src/nice.c > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ usage (int status) > printf (_("\ > Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process scheduling.= \n\ > With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses range from\n\ > -%d (most favorable scheduling) to %d (least favorable).\n\ > +%d (least favorable to the system) to %d (least favorable to the process= ).\n\ > \n\ > -n, --adjustment=3DN add integer N to the niceness (default 10)\n\ > "), Thanks! Here's an additional patch to avoid something I noticed in the context. Using "niceness" is bad enough without cementing the ugliness by using a plural form. >From 0d4efc37133820c5571316d0ebdf341270e712a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:42:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] doc: correct an old bit of ugliness in nice --help output * src/nice.c (usage): s/Nicenesses/Niceness values/ --- src/nice.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/nice.c b/src/nice.c index 7402b9e..f13be63 100644 --- a/src/nice.c +++ b/src/nice.c @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ usage (int status) printf (_("Usage: %s [OPTION] [COMMAND [ARG]...]\n"), program_name); printf (_("\ Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process scheduling.\n\ -With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses range from\n\ +With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Niceness values range from\n\ %d (most favorable to the process) to %d (least favorable to the process).= \n\ \n\ -n, --adjustment=3DN add integer N to the niceness (default 10)\n\ -- 1.7.12.1.382.gb0576a6 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Sep 28 17:04:22 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Sep 2012 21:04:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60979 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THhjS-0002zH-6J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:04:22 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58050) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1THhjP-0002zA-0V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:04:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THhjC-0003JO-MV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:04:07 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:40561) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THhjC-0003JG-Jc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:04:06 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33331) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THhjB-0004kJ-GV for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:04:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THhjA-0003Iz-Kl for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:04:05 -0400 Received: from mx.meyering.net ([88.168.87.75]:50971) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1THhjA-0003Ib-Dj for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:04:04 -0400 Received: from rho.meyering.net (rho.meyering.net [127.0.0.1]) by rho.meyering.net (Acme Bit-Twister) with ESMTP id A34E064146; Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:04:02 +0200 (CEST) From: Jim Meyering To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig?= Brady Subject: Re: bug#12530: nice(1) man page, bad wording In-Reply-To: <5065F754.3080806@draigBrady.com> (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22P=E1drai?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?g?= Brady"'s message of "Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:15:32 +0100") References: <1348800278.14619.340.camel@ncp21000> <5065B35B.7040901@draigBrady.com> <87d316yu1m.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <5065F754.3080806@draigBrady.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 23:04:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87k3vdyi4d.fsf@rho.meyering.net> Lines: 29 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit Cc: bug-coreutils@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.9 (------) P=E1draig Brady wrote: > On 09/28/2012 05:46 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Thanks! >> Here's an additional patch to avoid something I noticed in the context. >> Using "niceness" is bad enough without cementing the ugliness by using a >> plural form. > > Heh I'd done that too, but then reverted because I thought > the awkward phrasing might be there for a reason > (to ensure people didn't think they could specify a range). > But I was over thinking it, and your amendment is clearer. > > thanks, > P=E1draig. Hmm... looks like you were right to think that. I have just now looked for other occurrences of "nicenesses" and found this explanation from NEWS in 2005: nice changes: Documentation and diagnostics now refer to "nicenesses" (commonly in the range -20...19) rather than "nice values" (commonly 0...39). I expect to perform the same substitution on the sole use of "nicenesses" in coreutils.texi. Sorry I didn't think to check there before. $ g grep -i nicenesses doc doc/coreutils.texi:may have a wider range of nicenesses; conversely, ot= her systems may From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 01 19:23:11 2012 Received: (at 12530) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Oct 2012 23:23:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36848 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TIpKR-0007gI-Ac for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:23:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.derm.qld.gov.au ([203.8.131.102]:53095) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TIpKM-0007g5-Bk for 12530@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:23:09 -0400 Received: from ladel042.lands.resnet.qg (ladel042.lands.resnet.qg [172.19.7.1]) by mx1.derm.qld.gov.au (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q91NJEQZ011011 for <12530@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:19:14 +1000 Received: from MINFOLDERS.lands.resnet.qg (minfolders.lands.resnet.qg) by ladel042.lands.resnet.qg (Clearswift SMTPRS 5.3.4) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:19:14 +1000 Received: from MINMAIL5.lands.resnet.qg ([10.2.220.55]) by MINFOLDERS.lands.resnet.qg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:19:13 +1000 Received: from 10.0.88.10 ([10.0.88.10]) by MINMAIL5.lands.resnet.qg ([10.2.220.55]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 23:19:13 +0000 Received: from ncp21000 by minmail5.lands.resnet.qg; 02 Oct 2012 09:19:13 +1000 Subject: Re: bug#12530: nice(1) man page, bad wording From: David Diggles To: Jim Meyering In-Reply-To: <87d316yu1m.fsf@rho.meyering.net> References: <1348800278.14619.340.camel@ncp21000> <5065B35B.7040901@draigBrady.com> <87d316yu1m.fsf@rho.meyering.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1349133553.14619.384.camel@ncp21000> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.305 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 09:19:13 +1000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Oct 2012 23:19:13.0869 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B92C7D0:01CDA02B] X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12530 Cc: "12530-done@debbugs.gnu.org" <12530@debbugs.gnu.org>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig?= Brady , "Voelker, Bernhard" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.6 (---) I had not expected a response. GNU rocks, Cheers! On Sat, 2012-09-29 at 02:46, Jim Meyering wrote: > P=E1draig Brady wrote: >=20 > > On 09/28/2012 02:25 PM, Voelker, Bernhard wrote: > >> David Diggles wrote (Friday, September 28, 2012 4:45 AM) > >> > >>> DESCRIPTION > >>> Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process > >>> scheduling. With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses > >>> range from -20 > >>> (most favorable scheduling) to 19 (least favorable). > >>> > >>> Favorable to what? It really does not explain, since it can be > >>> interpreted in opposite ways. Please use words like higher and lower > >>> priority. > >> > >> Hello to Brisbane! > >> > >> Thanks for the report. > >> > >> "Favorable" means the kernel will favor this process before > >> it will take "least favorable" processes into account for > >> scheduling. > >> > >> I don't think the words "higher"/"lower" will bring clarity > >> to it, maybe it'd even be worse because a higher nice number > >> leads to lower priority. > >> > >> What about a stronger term like "aggressive scheduling"? > > > > Well with relative terms, it's best to state what they're relative to, > > so I'll apply something like this, as the wording is ambiguous. > > > > thanks! > > P=E1draig. > > > > diff --git a/src/nice.c b/src/nice.c > > index 1a90320..12d0b0f 100644 > > --- a/src/nice.c > > +++ b/src/nice.c > > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ usage (int status) > > printf (_("\ > > Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process schedulin= g.\n\ > > With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses range from\n\ > > -%d (most favorable scheduling) to %d (least favorable).\n\ > > +%d (least favorable to the system) to %d (least favorable to the proce= ss).\n\ > > \n\ > > -n, --adjustment=3DN add integer N to the niceness (default 10)\n\ > > "), >=20 > Thanks! > Here's an additional patch to avoid something I noticed in the context. > Using "niceness" is bad enough without cementing the ugliness by using a > plural form. >=20 > From 0d4efc37133820c5571316d0ebdf341270e712a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jim Meyering > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:42:05 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] doc: correct an old bit of ugliness in nice --help output >=20 > * src/nice.c (usage): s/Nicenesses/Niceness values/ > --- > src/nice.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 > diff --git a/src/nice.c b/src/nice.c > index 7402b9e..f13be63 100644 > --- a/src/nice.c > +++ b/src/nice.c > @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ usage (int status) > printf (_("Usage: %s [OPTION] [COMMAND [ARG]...]\n"), program_name= ); > printf (_("\ > Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process scheduling.= \n\ > -With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Nicenesses range from\n\ > +With no COMMAND, print the current niceness. Niceness values range from= \n\ > %d (most favorable to the process) to %d (least favorable to the process= ).\n\ > \n\ > -n, --adjustment=3DN add integer N to the niceness (default 10)\n\ > -- > 1.7.12.1.382.gb0576a6 ------------------------------ The information in this email together with any attachments is intended onl= y for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confide= ntial and/or privileged material. There is no waiver of any confidentiality= /privilege by your inadvertent receipt of this material.=20 Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publicati= on of this email message is prohibited, unless as a necessary part of Depar= tmental business. If you have received this message in error, you are asked to inform the sen= der as quickly as possible and delete this message and any copies of this m= essage from your computer and/or your computer system network. ------------------------------ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 11 17:28:58 2018 Received: (at 12530) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Oct 2018 21:28:58 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45594 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gAiVu-0003LO-8Y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:28:58 -0400 Received: from mail-it1-f172.google.com ([209.85.166.172]:34244) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gAiVs-0003L4-N2; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:28:57 -0400 Received: by mail-it1-f172.google.com with SMTP id l127-v6so19814371ith.1; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:28:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MQGeEeN9AGhLqp4wyUKL3Oh3rrkSAFRPfUDmaKLRozo=; b=lr69U96RyiONGAmiQ3b4ZeMtF7QePiZXV2k6RasgFdEAKHD3/JYR+IiBYx5YuntaWJ XF/68mSKk1p4TKqZHAbpclByuzGDvqQ9DJV7BmpkQ+Uv9TSCGocJXDMLMqLfmAfnWGOR RmC+t89kdw4MBmurLxcSKrcogeo7bWKM4+3huH8k8lqlxgFJdp7uGfFXGphPRu3yTwg6 DCrrWt42OWhzEIc3Hu+O2K64dq1SqZiFrC3V8zdeijy2StwYBKc6Iqn5Fn8zJzvgxr7m dkLR/RPl3lcpqBOy9G1z6GaIkFR1Y2UGAltSmxO/4mLK0hRCmiP/PJLSufZGuXzcyz8+ 22+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MQGeEeN9AGhLqp4wyUKL3Oh3rrkSAFRPfUDmaKLRozo=; b=lir+qf3gkZvGam7t79ZiE2LvLAYE72pbOyPSGA1ByRwLya35YS9mMjsdnlgR+iNM0K 5h5kqgpi5Q+x3NkXCGb9ZftaLldZ+8g2YMxMD0/MwPiyJh2kEXdWWHxJ8IfUEu4UTDyU L1b+krCUEBbfqRTxuQ8Mzl9yhSHifeb5CDWjj3+BZkxoWmPQNHGrKs4nHrvS2QwJduTZ JTiwmhIf/kVc7gOIOeuYmYns/8MDBZxx95qVDixc20frzPcTmV4jagDD88aDH5fgsn+H TFNqZPDEGKimnRtkvduyBH7LFyXdQqYsoSPNySPJFYVf38Hn/GJzqekeCUQS7fdWR7PN /DMg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoigOfTF9jj7TLrlRWtuvKrKYBZ2kk6tWMFNKKxGjG3ccBV29Gzw pfjraK8EKBvj7TBa4y6VDdAg9AbY X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60MgIk3nfEsqiBw5e7iZzHf2zpC1D8p/2HFr/4jinsz9ov7lCCTCz1zsBrDBPKKlIqPhsJWhg== X-Received: by 2002:a24:d1c5:: with SMTP id w188-v6mr2404175itg.99.1539293330553; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tomato.housegordon.com (moose.housegordon.com. [184.68.105.38]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id h8-v6sm10270949ioa.52.2018.10.11.14.28.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: bug#12530: nice(1) man page, bad wording To: 12530@debbugs.gnu.org References: <1348800278.14619.340.camel@ncp21000> <5065B35B.7040901@draigBrady.com> <87d316yu1m.fsf@rho.meyering.net> <1349133553.14619.384.camel@ncp21000> From: Assaf Gordon Message-ID: <71cdd115-c73e-5653-7bb8-a7c091f174aa@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 15:28:46 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1349133553.14619.384.camel@ncp21000> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12530 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 12530 fixed close 12530 stop Pushed in https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=0d4efc37133820c5571316d0ebdf341270e712a4 Closing. From unknown Sat Sep 13 17:04:07 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 12:24:06 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator