From: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2026 06:41:16 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ident: remove unused author_ident_sufficiently_given()
Message-ID: <aurTjEgKc5yw_vwD@pks.im>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtslx7nam.fsf@gitster.g>

On Tue, Nov 03, 2026 at 11:00:33AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2026 at 10:39:53AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >> A pair of functions {author,committer}_ident_sufficiently_given()
> >> were created to replace user_ident_explicitly_given() in d6991ceedc
> >
> > Nit, not worth a reroll, but isn't it "was created" as it is a singular
> > pair? Might just be me not being a native speaker though.
> 
> Neither am I a native speaker, but "Syntactic vs Notional Agreement"
> is what makes both valid.
> 
> Treating the "pair" as a singular subject is the strictly formal
> choice preferred by most academic and traditional style guides.
> 
> Even though "pair" is grammatically singular, it represents two
> distinct things, and in this particular case, we are retiring one of
> them while keeping the other, treating the "pair" as a separable
> two.

Thanks, today I learned :)

Patrick