Junio C Hamano wrote: > As you said, lack of a specific example of what is universally > confusing, or at least confusing to a not-so-insignificant part of > the readership, was why this change didn't gain much support. The original version doesn't necessarily need to be confusing. It's sufficient that the new version is better. > There might be one or two such places where the updated text does read > better, but it is not a very good use of reviewers' time to find such > needles in 700+ line haystack of a patch. As a reviewer I will decide where I to allocate my reviewer's time, because it's my time. -- Felipe Contreras
