On 2009-01-19, Allan Gottlieb <gottl...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> I would favor the original (with Alan McKinnon's change). It is
> somewhat wordy but this issue has caused several users grief and the
> (admittedly repetitive) original wording makes it very clear what must
> be done and gives some idea of what caused the change.
Being somewhat repetitive was was intentional. It's sort of
like the redundant information in an error-correction code. It
reduces the liklyhood of being misunderstood -- expecially by
readers for whom English is a second language. Maybe it's just
me, but I'm always reluctant to follow instructions in emerge
warning messages where there's no explanation of what the
action is doing and why it is needed.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! When you get your
at PH.D. will you get able to
visi.com work at BURGER KING?
