>On 12/25/17, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 12:31:02AM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 03:57:00PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: >>> > I think this is a silly solution, and the documentation is clear >>> > enough. >>> The manual page certainly is clear enough but the current error message >>> is logically wrong, as there are sufficient Xs *in* `XXXXXXs' but just >>> not at the end of it, call it nitpicking if you will. >>> >>> > How did this happen to you? Show the place where it happened to you. >>> > Would the text you propose actually have saved you 1 second of time >>> > to help you realize what was wrong? I don't think so. >>> Just a typo really making me think "this could be clearer". So yes, I >>> find telling this way actually saves time understanding the error, even >>> if so little. >>> >>> > If you weren't familiar that the template has to be minimum 6 XXXXXX at >>> > end of the string, then you hadn't achieved familiarity of the >>> > subject matter yet. >>> I agree that knowing one from the manual implies knowing the other as >>> well, but it doesn't seem reason enough to keep the error message as is, >>> hence the diff. >> >> I disagree. An error message does not need to document everything, An >> erro message should short and clear enough together with the doumentation. > >all well and good, but let's not drop words and letters in pursuit of brevity.
this isn't a competition to see if your opinion matters
