On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:47:15AM -0500, Varun Varada wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 01:47, Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:13:08AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > Michal Suchánek wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:43:38PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > > > 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). > > > > > > > > You forget that what you are doing right now is bikeshedding after the > > > > fact. > > > > > > Except that's not what I'm doing. > > > > > > > You can use 'affect' or 'impact' and it generally conveys the same > > > > meaning. > > > > > > That's clearly *your* opinion, but that's not my opinon. > > > > > > I'm not arguing between blue and red; I'm arguing between water-based and > > > lead-based paint. > > > > No, you are not. There is no clear problem with 'impact', either. > > > > So if somebody comes along later and says that they find 'affect' > > confusing and impact should be used does that need to be accepted as > > well, back and forth ad nauseam? > > This is whataboutism and hypothetical. But even if one were to > disregard those facts, I'm willing to bet actual money that no one (at > least anyone with access to a dictionary or even a basic grasp of the > English language) would do this because "affect" has a universal > definition and is not in the realm of jargon in any dictionary or > style guide. The same cannot be said about "impact". > > > > > > The difference may not matter to you, but it matters to me. > > > > > > If it's bikeshedding to you, and it "gnerally conveys the same meaning", > > > why are you arguing against? > > > > So if 'for' loops and 'while' loops generally convey the same meaning > > should we accept patches that replace some 'for' loops with 'while' > > lopps or vice versa? > > > > Surely not. There are different situations in which loops can be used, > > and different people find 'for' and 'while' loops clearer and and easier > > to understand in different situations. If you rewrite the piece of code > > that includes a loop it might be worthwhile to change the loop type for > > clarity, and at the time when the code is added or modified it is time > > to discuss which one is better, not after. > > > > On the other hand if you state the goal to not have redundant semicolons > > then even if code with and without redundant semicolons is the same and > > in most cases it does not make any difference for human understanding > > either patches that just remove redundant semicolons work towards a > > specific goal. That makes them acceptable even if they are very minor > > because there is clear metric they improve which makes the inverse patch > > not acceptable. > > > > If you want to make the case for 'impact' in general being obscure or > > hard to understand you will have hard time doing so. There are > > dictionaries that recognize 'impact' as synonymous to 'affect' without > > any difference in degree. In the COCA corpus there is around 200k > > instances of 'effect', around 100k instances of 'affect', and around > > 100k instances of 'impact' which makes effect/affect about 3 times more > > frequent than 'impact'. That's not even an order of magnitude - clearly > > not enough to claim it obscure. All of the words are within first 1k so > > arguably if you have intermediate knowledge of (US) English you should > > be familiar with all three. > > > > However, there is a different corpus that is much more relevant for the > > git project: > > > > ✔ ~/git [master|…9] > > 06:35 $ git grep affect | wc -l > > 368 > > ✔ ~/git [master|…9] > > 06:41 $ git grep effect | wc -l > > 350 > > ✔ ~/git [master|…9] > > 06:42 $ git grep impact | wc -l > > 54 > > > > There are only 54 instances of the word 'impact' in the git repository > > which make up only 7.5%. It is feasible to eliminate those 54 instances > > completely. In doing so you will make the git project use the same > > wording consistently which makes it arguably more approachable to > > non-native speakers with limited vocabulary. That states a clear metric > > that is improved by such patch which also makes the reverse patch not > > acceptable and prevents potential for infinite back-and-forth changing > > from one synonym to the other. > > > > Bonus points if you add a test that prevents adding new instances of > > 'impact' in the future. > > So you're saying you're OK with getting rid of all instances of > "impact"? I'm for this, but insofar as I searched the code base, I > only found the ones I'm changing in my patch (save for a couple that, > as a previous reviewer mentioned, are included from other repos, so I > left those). Yes, I am not opposed to the change in principle. You just failed to provide any valid reason. Part of writing a patch is coming up with sound reasoning why the change is desirable and stating that clearly in the commit message. I don't know if this reasoning is acceptable to git maintainers but at least there is some real data it is based on. Thanks Michal
