Re: [PATCH] doc: reword gitworflows for neutrality
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Bensoussan <daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr> wrote:
> doc: reword gitworflows for neutrality
s/gitworflows/gitworkflows/
Show 15 quoted lines
> Changed 'he' to 'them' to be more neutral in "gitworkflows.txt".
>
> See discussion at: https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqvahieeqy.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Timothee Albertin <timothee.albertin@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Payre <nathan.payre@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Bensoussan <daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
> ---
> diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
> @@ -407,8 +407,8 @@ follows.
> -Occasionally, the maintainer may get merge conflicts when he tries to
> -pull changes from downstream. In this case, he can ask downstream to
> +Occasionally, the maintainer may get merge conflicts when they try to
> +pull changes from downstream. In this case, they can ask downstream to
As a native English speaker, I find the new phrasing odd, and think this may a step backward. How about trying a different approach? For example:
Occasionally, the maintainer may get merge conflicts when trying
to pull changes from downstream. In this case, it may make sense
to ask downstream to do the merge and resolve the conflicts
instead (since, presumably, downstream will know better how to
resolve them).> do the merge and resolve the conflicts themselves (perhaps they will
> know better how to resolve them). It is one of the rare cases where
> downstream 'should' merge from upstream.
Daniel Bensoussan