Reviewing the use of admonitions

[Eric Christensen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Okay, so lets make it happen!

Eric



Paul W. Frields wrote:
| On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:34 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
|> On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 18:18 -0400, Eric Christensen wrote:
|>> I agree with the info and note being close.  I do think that the caution
|>> and warning could be defined differently.  IF I were defining them I say
|>> that CAUTION meant that you can do this but shouldn't unless you have
|>> experience and WARNING means don't do this because you are getting ready
|>> to fry your system.  I wouldn't want to dilute the WARNING down as I
|>> want users to really pay attention to what is being said there and not
|>> just pass it by only to delete everything on their system inadvertently.
|>>
|>> Just my 2 cents worth.
|> To which I would say, no one is worse off if the CAUTION becomes a
|> WARNING, as opposed to the opposite.  People should, given your logic --
|> with which I agree -- then be a little or a lot more careful than
|> otherwise, making the admonition that much more effective.  I wouldn't
|> want to dilute the WARNING; given a choice I'd prefer it.
|
| I apologize, this is in a little conflict with the GDP guidelines.  But
| you should note that they have redefined CAUTION to mean what WARNING
| would have meant before, and exactly what you describe -- making this
| discussion purely semantics. :-)
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkiHuIgACgkQL5V8yddJCO1GgACfeZ+YIT9gSqCris8j/NsEHCq8
JkkAn0dHD8NAPpUCqVf22UG4lu/qJjW4
=AOHU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----