Varun Varada wrote: > Re: your point about me not pointing out specific examples: the > command output for detached HEAD state reads "you can discard any > commits you make in this state without impacting any branches by > switching back to a branch". I'm incredibly passionate about this > example. Here, the user is left to think, "wait...so this will not > impact (significantly affect) any branches, but will it affect them? > As in, are there side effects that I should be aware of? Where do I go > to find out what they are?" All of this mental energy is completely > unnecessary. Mind you, this is regarding discarding commits, which is > a destructive action. Completely agree. I'm not a native speaker of English, but nowadays I use English more than any other language, and when I read *impact* I read alarm bells. First I'm reminded of "brace for impact", which something nobody should take lightly (native speaker or not), and when I search for "impact" on IMDB the first result I find is Deep Impact [1]. Not something bland. Maybe my understanding of the word has been tainted by my experience, sure... But I'm still waiting for anybody to explain what's wrong with "affect". > > > But why bother? The word "affect" is a much superior choice. > > > > Why bother with a chenge at all? > > It seems like you already previously agreed with the premise that the > word means "a significant effect" or "to significantly affect". I > understand and appreciate your thoroughness to scrutinize changes to > the repo, but I'm frankly surprised that such a small change is > attracting such fierce debate. This is meant to be a change that is > probably one of the easiest ones to decide on: it only consists of > one-word changes that don't change functionality, yet undeniably > reduce confusion. When I started contributing to the git project more than 10 years ago I noticed precisely the same thing. It is a paradox called "the bikeshedding effect". When you contribute a complex and convoluted change it's easier to get it in because few people can object (as few people can understand it). But when you contribute a change as simple as changing the color of something, then *everyone* can opine (literally). That's why the simplest changes tend to be the most difficult. Additionally in my opinion the git project has a language problem, but that's a separate subject. > Re: your previous point about linguistic authorities: yes, there is no > authority on usage, but therein lies my point. This doesn't even need > to rise to the domain of usage, because it is squarely within the > realm of semantics. Words mean something, and we all use dictionaries > to learn about / confirm those meanings. Insofar as all the major > dictionaries cite the word as "a significant effect" / "to affect > significantly", that semantic concept doesn't belong in the cases > where I've made changes. And if it does, then those need to be > clarified (because that's where the real confusion/ambiguity is). > I.e., it's not "why is not every case a significant effect?", but "why > are some cases a significant effect?" I often find it's easier to flip the problem around (from Karl Popper's falsification principle). It should not be your duty to prove that all swans are white (which is impossible), it's the duty of the skeptics to prove that a single swan is black. I haven't seen a single person in this thread pointing out what's wrong with "affect". Cheers. [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120647/ -- Felipe Contreras
