On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 5:54 AM David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Oct 2026 at 21:45, Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 23 Oct 2026, at 10:33, David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -- plus y2006m04 .. y2007m10 (abbreviation for brevity) > > > > Or perhaps "-- repeated for y2006m04 .. y2007m10 (abbreviated for brevity)" > > or "repeat", as in, we're asking them to do it.
If this example was what originated the message, your proposed changes raises the following in my mind: The paragraph goes "So the commands might look like: (EXAMPLE)", to substitute the ellipsis with "-- repeat for y2006m04 .. y2007m10 (abbreviated for brevity)" will add an inconsistency with that statement. Using something like "-- statements for creating remaining partitions to cover the whole space" might be better, however, I think the ellipsis does a good job conveying the idea with greater brevity IMO. The problem is not "an example does not run", if it was, then a fix with a working example should be delivered. The problem, IMO, is "Misaligned expectations about examples from a part of the audience". This seems to be the cause of several messages in the mailing list. A solution for this would be adding "somewhere at the beginning" of the doc something like "Examples may not work, they are aimed to be a guide for learning. In the case of not working, understanding why will provide a better understanding of what the example is meant to convey". When a message originating from this arrives, it can be handled by routing to this explanation.
