UPDATING readability

[Geoff Speicher]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 02:16:50PM -0700, David Syphers wrote:
> On Saturday 16 October 2004 01:25 pm, Marc Ramirez wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 October 2004 03:08 pm, David Syphers wrote:
> > > On Saturday 16 October 2004 01:53 am, Matteo Riondato wrote:
> > > > Could we change an entry from:
> > > >
> > > > 20041007:
> > > >         One of the syscalls the 1:1 threading library libthr uses has
> > > >         changed, thus breaking ABI compatibility. Make sure you 
> > > > rebuild this library with the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > to:
> >
> > Compromise: One of the syscalls _which_ the ...
> 
> Okay... this would be grammatically correct. However, I'm curious why the 
> original poster believes the current version to be unclear, since it is also 
> grammatically correct. (Omitting "that" or "which" at the beginning of a 
> restrictive relative clause is very common in English.)

I think the point is that sometimes the omission makes a sentence less
clear, and this is arguably an instance of one of those cases.  I think
you would agree that inserting a "that" isn't any less clear or correct.

On my bikeshed, somebody wrote this:

	20041007:
		Rebuild libthr the next time you rebuild your kernel.

:)

Geoff