On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Mark Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: >> May I suggest not calling it "starting" once it has started? I found >> that very confusing, and it is wrong. > > Yeah. Technically, > "things-are-happening-but-will-happen-again-unless-we-get-to-the-first-checkpoint-so-that-we-don't-have-to-redo-this-part" > would be more correct. If someone has a better word that summarizes > that bit then I'd be happy to make the change, but I sure can't think > of something better than "starting" or "initializing" or some other > generic description that would cause less confusion. >
starting? :D
