bug#12530: nice(1) man page, bad wording

[David Diggles]

I had not expected a response.

GNU rocks,

Cheers!

On Sat, 2012-09-29 at 02:46, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
> 
> > On 09/28/2012 02:25 PM, Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> >> David Diggles wrote (Friday, September 28, 2012 4:45 AM)
> >>
> >>> DESCRIPTION
> >>>         Run  COMMAND  with an adjusted niceness, which affects process
> >>> scheduling.  With no COMMAND, print the current niceness.  Nicenesses
> >>> range from -20
> >>>         (most favorable scheduling) to 19 (least favorable).
> >>>
> >>> Favorable to what?  It really does not explain, since it can be
> >>> interpreted in opposite ways.  Please use words like higher and lower
> >>> priority.
> >>
> >> Hello to Brisbane!
> >>
> >> Thanks for the report.
> >>
> >> "Favorable" means the kernel will favor this process before
> >> it will take "least favorable" processes into account for
> >> scheduling.
> >>
> >> I don't think the words "higher"/"lower" will bring clarity
> >> to it, maybe it'd even be worse because a higher nice number
> >> leads to lower priority.
> >>
> >> What about a stronger term like "aggressive scheduling"?
> >
> > Well with relative terms, it's best to state what they're relative to,
> > so I'll apply something like this, as the wording is ambiguous.
> >
> > thanks!
> > Pádraig.
> >
> > diff --git a/src/nice.c b/src/nice.c
> > index 1a90320..12d0b0f 100644
> > --- a/src/nice.c
> > +++ b/src/nice.c
> > @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ usage (int status)
> >        printf (_("\
> >  Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process scheduling.\n\
> >  With no COMMAND, print the current niceness.  Nicenesses range from\n\
> > -%d (most favorable scheduling) to %d (least favorable).\n\
> > +%d (least favorable to the system) to %d (least favorable to the 
> > process).\n\
> >  \n\
> >    -n, --adjustment=N   add integer N to the niceness (default 10)\n\
> >  "),
> 
> Thanks!
> Here's an additional patch to avoid something I noticed in the context.
> Using "niceness" is bad enough without cementing the ugliness by using a
> plural form.
> 
> From 0d4efc37133820c5571316d0ebdf341270e712a4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:42:05 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: correct an old bit of ugliness in nice --help output
> 
> * src/nice.c (usage): s/Nicenesses/Niceness values/
> ---
>  src/nice.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/nice.c b/src/nice.c
> index 7402b9e..f13be63 100644
> --- a/src/nice.c
> +++ b/src/nice.c
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ usage (int status)
>        printf (_("Usage: %s [OPTION] [COMMAND [ARG]...]\n"), program_name);
>        printf (_("\
>  Run COMMAND with an adjusted niceness, which affects process scheduling.\n\
> -With no COMMAND, print the current niceness.  Nicenesses range from\n\
> +With no COMMAND, print the current niceness.  Niceness values range from\n\
>  %d (most favorable to the process) to %d (least favorable to the process).\n\
>  \n\
>    -n, --adjustment=N   add integer N to the niceness (default 10)\n\
> --
> 1.7.12.1.382.gb0576a6


------------------------------
The information in this email together with any attachments is intended only 
for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material. There is no waiver of any confidentiality/privilege 
by your inadvertent receipt of this material. 
Any form of review, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication 
of this email message is prohibited, unless as a necessary part of Departmental 
business.
If you have received this message in error, you are asked to inform the sender 
as quickly as possible and delete this message and any copies of this message 
from your computer and/or your computer system network.
------------------------------