On 8/13/14, Padraig Rocks <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, 12 August 2014, Andrei POPESCU <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Ma, 12 aug 14, 12:51:12, Paul E Condon wrote: >> > I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed >> > use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a >> ... >> > In a better formulated message, there should be a comma ',' between >> > 'user' and '$USER'. Thus if the USER of Session 2 is Joe, the message >> > should read (adding a full stop at the end): >> > >> > "A stopped job is running for Session 2 of user, Joe." >> > >> > But even this is poorly worded. A job that is both running, and >> > stopped is a goofy idea, as well as somewhat verbose. Maybe it should >> > be: >> > >> > "A stopped job exists for Session 2 of user, Joe." >> >> As a non-native speaker of English I understood the message as being >> about a job that tries to stop something, hence "a stop job". Also, the >> comma definitely "feels" wrong. If anything that I'd rather put a colon, >> but it's still quite understandable for me like it is. > > Or to avoid the comma ? > > " A stopped job exists in Session 2 of the user named Joe"
I too read the error as meaning a special noun/ special process or application called a "stop job". Often resequencing an English sentence can help to remove ambiguities, eg: For Session 2 of user joe, a stop job exists. Or of course if the word is meant to be stopped: For Session 2 of user joe, a stopped job exists. There should also be a suggestion in the error message of timeout eg: For Session 2 of user joe, a stop job exists; now waiting up to 90 seconds. Regards, Zenaan _______________________________________________ D-community-offtopic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
