Skip to main content
English Language & Usage

Return to Question

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackEnglish/status/388820970028695552
added 21 characters in body
Source Link
Daniel Beck
Daniel Beck
  • 133
  • 1
  • 1
  • 6

In software documentation, I recently read:

If you move a job to a different folder, you may also need to update configuration that was referring to that job.

But if you have a "configuration that was referring to that job" you need to update it (or really should). Not doing that will result in broken configuration and ultimately, broken behavior.

Is this use of "may need to" really correct? Is there a valid reason the documentation is phrased like this, instead of "…, you also need to update"?

Doesn't the current documentation through the use of "may" imply that there are situations where you're not required to update configuration because it handles the job move correctly?

In software documentation, I recently read:

If you move a job to a different folder, you may also need to update configuration that was referring to that job.

But if you have a "configuration that was referring to that job" you need to update it. Not doing that will result in broken configuration and ultimately, broken behavior.

Is this use of "may need to" really correct? Is there a valid reason the documentation is phrased like this, instead of "…, you also need to update"?

Doesn't the current documentation through the use of "may" imply that there are situations where you're not required to update configuration because it handles the job move correctly?

In software documentation, I recently read:

If you move a job to a different folder, you may also need to update configuration that was referring to that job.

But if you have a "configuration that was referring to that job" you need to update it (or really should). Not doing that will result in broken configuration and ultimately, broken behavior.

Is this use of "may need to" really correct? Is there a valid reason the documentation is phrased like this, instead of "…, you also need to update"?

Doesn't the current documentation through the use of "may" imply that there are situations where you're not required to update configuration because it handles the job move correctly?

Source Link
Daniel Beck
Daniel Beck
  • 133
  • 1
  • 1
  • 6

Use of "may need to" when you actually need to

In software documentation, I recently read:

If you move a job to a different folder, you may also need to update configuration that was referring to that job.

But if you have a "configuration that was referring to that job" you need to update it. Not doing that will result in broken configuration and ultimately, broken behavior.

Is this use of "may need to" really correct? Is there a valid reason the documentation is phrased like this, instead of "…, you also need to update"?

Doesn't the current documentation through the use of "may" imply that there are situations where you're not required to update configuration because it handles the job move correctly?