On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Reuben Thomas wrote: >> I don't think so. This paragraph is here to explain that one can usually rely >> on _ but not when the follow or follow_fast option is used. > > That's exactly the opposite of what the paragraph says. It says that "this > guarantee no longer holds if follow or follow_fast are *not* set" (my > emphasis). Hence, presumably this guarantee (that one can rely on _) *does* > hold if follow or follow_fast *is* set. Indeed, it means that one can rely > on _ *only* when using follow or follow_fast.
Right sorry, I overlooked a "not". Still, that bit of duplicated information doesn't hurt, in particular when it explains that the remark also applies to follow_fast (which is a separate option, so one can't remove this sentence without loosing some useful information). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
