# [PATCH] doc: reword gitworflows for neutrality

3 messages from 2017-12-08 to 2017-12-10. Participants: Daniel Bensoussan, Eric Sunshine, BENSOUSSAN--BOHM DANIEL p1507430.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/47409

## Daniel Bensoussan, 2017-12-08 15:18

Subject: [PATCH] doc: reword gitworflows for neutrality
Message-ID: <20171208151807.3569-1-daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20171208151807.3569-1-daniel.bensoussan--bohm%40etu.univ-lyon1.fr

```
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>
---
 Documentation/gitworkflows.txt | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
index 02569d0..926e044 100644
--- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
+++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
@@ -407,8 +407,8 @@ follows.
 `git pull <url> <branch>`
 =====================================
 
-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
 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.
-- 
2.11.0


```

## Eric Sunshine, 2017-12-08 18:01

Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: reword gitworflows for neutrality
Message-ID: <CAPig+cTgJepi6xVn0+qP3SW0Y0g-6Nf4LvCjCkvEHfZwugY1Hg@mail.gmail.com>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAPig%2BcTgJepi6xVn0%2BqP3SW0Y0g-6Nf4LvCjCkvEHfZwugY1Hg%40mail.gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20171208151807.3569-1-daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>

```
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/

> 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.

```

## BENSOUSSAN--BOHM DANIEL p1507430, 2017-12-10 11:58

Subject: RE: [PATCH] doc: reword gitworflows for neutrality
Message-ID: <1512907098563.90200@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/1512907098563.90200%40etu.univ-lyon1.fr
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cTgJepi6xVn0+qP3SW0Y0g-6Nf4LvCjCkvEHfZwugY1Hg@mail.gmail.com>

```
>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).

Indeed, this is an other possibility.

Thanks for the review.

Daniel BENSOUSSAN-BOHM

```