On Tuesday, September 3, 2024, Kyotaro Horiguchi <
horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
At Tue, 3 Sep 2024 10:43:14 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 9:14 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 5:47 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ----
> > >
> > > To summarize, the current description wrongly describes the field as a
> > > time duration:
> > > "The time since the slot has become inactive."
> > >
> > > I suggest replacing it with:
> > > "The slot has been inactive since this time."
> > >
> >
> > +1 for the change. If I had read the document without knowing about
> > the patch, I too would have interpreted it as a duration.
> >
>
> The suggested change looks good to me as well. I'll wait for a day or
> two before pushing to see if anyone thinks otherwise.
If possible, I'd prefer to use "the time" as the subject. For example,
would "The time this slot was inactivated" be acceptable? However,
this loses the sense of continuation up to that point, so if that's
crucial, the current proposal might be better.
Agree on sticking with “The time…”
Thus I suggest either:
The time when the slot became inactive.
The time when the slot was deactivated.
Apparently inactivate is a valid choice here but it definitely sounds like unusual usage in this context. Existing usage (via GibHub search…someone may want to grep) seems to support deactivate as well.
I like the first suggestion more, especially since becoming inactive can happen without user input. Saying deactivate could be seen to imply user intervention.
David J.
