On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 12:59 +0400, A.Salatov wrote:
> No, you correct me if I'm wrong, but when I think about 'settrans' my
> mind always going to compare it to 'umount' and I started to think about
> a reasons why 'umount' is 'umount' and not 'unmount'. The simplest
> reason for it, that I could i
A.Salatov ha scritto:
No, you correct me if I'm wrong, but when I think about 'settrans' my
mind always going to compare it to 'umount' and I started to think about
a reasons why 'umount' is 'umount' and not 'unmount'.
I've always found *that* a bug.
umount means nothing. uNmount has a meaning
Thomas Thurman wrote:
2008/6/9 A.Salatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
In name of command 'settrans' is too many times used 't'. Actualy it is
used in it's name, twice. But normaly name of this command must unclude 't'
only once. So in normal form, name of this command, must be such: 'setrans'.
In g
2008/6/9 A.Salatov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
> In name of command 'settrans' is too many times used 't'. Actualy it is
> used in it's name, twice. But normaly name of this command must unclude 't'
> only once. So in normal form, name of this command, must be such: 'setrans'.
> In general it is a
Hi,
In name of command 'settrans' is too many times used 't'. Actualy it is
used in it's name, twice. But normaly name of this command must unclude
't' only once. So in normal form, name of this command, must be such:
'setrans'. In general it is a minor bug, but it is bug. ;-)
