Re: [PATCH] doc: replace jargon word "impact" with "effect"/"affect"

> Varun Varada wrote:
> 
> > Re: your point about me not pointing out specific examples: the
> > command output for detached HEAD state reads "you can discard any
> > commits you make in this state without impacting any branches by
> > switching back to a branch". I'm incredibly passionate about this
> > example. Here, the user is left to think, "wait...so this will not
> > impact (significantly affect) any branches, but will it affect them?
> > As in, are there side effects that I should be aware of? Where do I go
> > to find out what they are?" All of this mental energy is completely
> > unnecessary. Mind you, this is regarding discarding commits, which is
> > a destructive action.
> 
> Completely agree.
> 
> I'm not a native speaker of English, but nowadays I use English more
> than any other language, and when I read *impact* I read alarm bells.
> 
> First I'm reminded of "brace for impact", which something nobody should
> take lightly (native speaker or not), and when I search for "impact" on
> IMDB the first result I find is Deep Impact [1]. Not something bland.
> Maybe my understanding of the word has been tainted by my experience,
> sure...
> 
> But I'm still waiting for anybody to explain what's wrong with "affect".
> 
> > > > But why bother? The word "affect" is a much superior choice.
> > >
> > > Why bother with a chenge at all?
> > 
> > It seems like you already previously agreed with the premise that the
> > word means "a significant effect" or "to significantly affect". I
> > understand and appreciate your thoroughness to scrutinize changes to
> > the repo, but I'm frankly surprised that such a small change is
> > attracting such fierce debate. This is meant to be a change that is
> > probably one of the easiest ones to decide on: it only consists of
> > one-word changes that don't change functionality, yet undeniably
> > reduce confusion.
> 
> When I started contributing to the git project more than 10 years ago I
> noticed precisely the same thing.
> 
> It is a paradox called "the bikeshedding effect". When you contribute a
> complex and convoluted change it's easier to get it in because few people
> can object (as few people can understand it). But when you contribute a
> change as simple as changing the color of something, then *everyone* can
> opine (literally).