On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:52:40 +0100 Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:23 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Two things: > > > > 1) Whatever anyone's abstract position on the wording of our > > documentation, either the one stored in git.git or at > > https://github.com/git/git-scm.com there's only so much a > > theoretical discussion like this can get us. > > > > If you're willing to pursue this further I think it's best if that's > > done in the form of patches to either repositories, either sent here > > on-list (see Documentation/SubmittingPatches) or as a PR to > > https://github.com/git/git-scm.com > > I agree. > > > 2) Any piece of software or technical tool is going to unavoidably need > > to use some amount of jargon, or words that are lifted from a more > > general vocabulary and intended to be understood in context. > > > > Thus, when we talk about e.g. "trees" in git, it's understood that > > we're talking about something in the context of this software > > project, trying to go by the first Google result of "tree" isn't > > going to get you anywhere. > > > > I for one thing those git-scm docs could be changed to eliminate those > > words for reasons entirely unrelated to them somehow being religious or > > militaristic. > > I agree that it would be a much better outcome of this discussion. > > > * The docs already use "integration manager" and then introduce > > "dictator" as a synonym in the context of explaining the workflow of > > the kernel. > > > > They could instead use "main integrator" or something, since the > > point of the example is to explain how git can be used to manage > > distributed repositories that are integrated in a hierarchical > > manner. > > I would suggest considering "maintainer" or "main maintainer" or "top > level maintainer", as I think "maintainer" is one of the most common > word used for the role in the Linux kernel and Git communities. By the > way it's often used in expressions like "sub-system maintainer", which > maybe could be used to replace "lieutenant". > Which suggests certain way the responsibility is divided in the project and limits the thinking of the people reading the documentations. While for many projects it is sensible to divide the project into subsystems and have subsystem maintainers for some it is not and they need different way to divide the work. For some projects the role of maintainer and integrator is fulfilled by the same person and for some it might be not. Thanks Michal
