Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH SECURITY-POLICY 3/9] Deployment with Security Team Permission

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth.xen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Agree with George

On 19 Jan 2015, at 15:55, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Ian Jackson
> <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH SECURITY-POLICY 3/9] Deployment 
>> with Security Team Permission"):
>>> On 19 Jan 2015, at 10:20, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 16.01.15 at 20:52, <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> +<p>List members may, if (and only if) the Security Team grants
>>>>> +permission, deploy fixed versions during the embargo.  Permission for
>>> 
>>> Better: List members may deploy fixed versions during the embargo, if (...)
>> 
>> The reason I didn't write it like that is that someone who reads only
>> the first part of the sentence might not see the caveat.
>> 
>> Is my wording unclear ?
> 
> I think it's just a less common grammatical construct (splitting "may
> do X" into "may, if Y, do X"), and so perhaps a bit more difficult for
> non-native speakers to parse?  But I think that probably in this case,
> while it might take a bit more effort to read for some, the risk of
> someone actually misunderstanding your wording is low; while the risk
> of someone missing the caveat in the other wording is much more
> dangerous.  So I'd leave it the way it is.
> 
> -George


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel