On Tuesday, September 3, 2024, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote:
> At Tue, 3 Sep 2024 10:43:14 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote in > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 9:14 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 5:47 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > To summarize, the current description wrongly describes the field as > a > > > > time duration: > > > > "The time since the slot has become inactive." > > > > > > > > I suggest replacing it with: > > > > "The slot has been inactive since this time." > > > > > > > > > > +1 for the change. If I had read the document without knowing about > > > the patch, I too would have interpreted it as a duration. > > > > > > > The suggested change looks good to me as well. I'll wait for a day or > > two before pushing to see if anyone thinks otherwise. > > If possible, I'd prefer to use "the time" as the subject. For example, > would "The time this slot was inactivated" be acceptable? However, > this loses the sense of continuation up to that point, so if that's > crucial, the current proposal might be better. > Agree on sticking with “The time…” Thus I suggest either: The time when the slot became inactive. The time when the slot was deactivated. Apparently inactivate is a valid choice here but it definitely sounds like unusual usage in this context. Existing usage (via GibHub search…someone may want to grep) seems to support deactivate as well. I like the first suggestion more, especially since becoming inactive can happen without user input. Saying deactivate could be seen to imply user intervention. David J.
