[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFR] templates://ngircd/{ngircd.templates}

Quoting Justin B Rye (jbr@edlug.org.uk):

> > +#flag:translate!:5
> > +_Description: Converted configuration file error
> > + The converted configuration failed checks after conversion failed.
> Hang on, "Verification after conversion failed" doesn't mean that
> "conversion failed"; it means conversion seemed to succeed and
> generated a config, but then validation of that file subsequently
> failed.  Say:
>     The converted configuration failed validation checks.

Sure. Moreover, my rewritten cra^W sentence had "failed" twice. This
is what you get when writing things "over" the former version..:)

> > -Description: Next generation IRC Server
> > +Description: yet another IRC Server
> > 
> > "next generation" will sound weird in 10 years..:-)
> It sounded a bit ridiculous to me by the mid-nineties (when "Star
> Trek: The Next Generation" was old hat), and that's before ngIRCd
> existed; but I would nonetheless vote for using the phrase as an
> explicit "explain the name" synopsis:
>    Description: next generation IRC daemon

Hmmmm. I take this really because I don't find anything else but,
really, "next generation foo", capitalized or not, really sounds

"second" generation, maybe? :-)

> > + The ngircd daemon is an IRC server for small or private networks. It does
> > + provide advanced features such as services. It is written from
> > + scratch and is not based upon the original IRCd.
> "The ngircd daemon" avoids leading lowercase, but at the cost of a
> minor outbreak of PIN-numberism.

I don't understand what you mean here, but I take your word on this..:)

> Whoops!  Missing "not" at the end of the first line.  And once you
> fix that and take away the implication that code reuse is bad, this
> description doesn't mention any advantages of using ngIRCd rather than
> any of its rivals.  Import some advertising copy from the home page:
>     This package provides an Internet Relat Chat server for small or private
>     networks. It does not provide advanced features such as services, but it
>     is simple to configure and can cope with dynamic IP addresses. It is
>     written from scratch and not based on the original IRCd.
> (I didn't know what "services" meant, but my first guess was things
> like NickServ, and that turns out to be right, so fair enough.)

oh, this is *this*?

Maybe "advanced features such as Nickserv-like services"?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: