[NUT-devel] redundant documents in the repository

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 07:00:26PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 02:10:02PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:34:07PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:48:52AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:51:19AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:20:26AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:58:55AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:43:39AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:22:11PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > In the repository we have 
> >> > > > > > > > 
> >> > > > > > > > docs/oggless-xiph-codecs.txt
> >> > > > > > > > src/trunk/docs/draft-xiph-oggless-00.xml
> >> > > > > > > > 
> >> > > > > > > > The former was written by Michael, the latter by Alex.  What's it going
> >> > > > > > > > to be?
> >> > > > > > > 
> >> > > > > > > http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Oggless
> >> > > > > > 
> >> > > > > > Does this mean we can remove both documents from our repository because
> >> > > > > > the information has found a better place?
> >> > > > > 
> >> > > > > I think so, but maybe wait a day to see if anyone disagrees.
> >> > > > 
> >> > > > Also you should update the link on http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Oggless
> >> > > > so it points to the last revision before the removial or the link will 
> >> > > > break.
> >> > > 
> >> > > I don't have an account on that wiki and I cannot create one.  Could you
> >> > > please update the link?  This is the link to use:
> >> > > 
> >> > > http://svn.mplayerhq.hu/nut/docs/oggless-xiph-codecs.txt?view=log&pathrev=577
> >> > 
> >> > done
> >> 
> >> I managed to create an account on that wiki in the meantime, but thanks
> >> anyway.
> >> 
> >> You may wish to review my edits to the document, I did my usual
> >> spelling/wording fixes, parts of it were a bit hard to understand due to
> >> lack of punctuation.
> >> 
> >> What are you trying to express with the term "separatable" in the
> >> sentence "container packet here means the smallest separatable data unit
> >> in the container"?  It is not an English word AFAIK.
> >
> > Well google has 12800 matches for it. My dictionary contains it, in my own
> > handwriting. So i think theres no problem here. You can also use the archaic
> > spelling of it, that is separable. If thou preferst.
> 
> "Separable" is the correct word; there is nothing archaic about it.
> "Separatable" is not in any dictionary that I own.

Thats because your dictionaries have not been updated by me. Let me guess,
they also lack "awnser"?

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/nut-devel/attachments/20080204/85626f7a/attachment.pgp>