On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:32:16PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Michal Suchánek wrote: > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:47:15AM -0500, Varun Varada wrote: > > > 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. > > Good, so you accept you see nothing wrong with "affect". > > > You just failed to provide any valid reason. > > *In your opinion*. > > In my opinion the problems with the word "impact" have been clearly > explained. However, you only brought your personal opinion for the case that 'impact' is somehow wrong and should be changed. 'impact' and 'affect' are equally good based on the past discussion so you will not bring change based on the 'badness' of 'impact'. You claim that people who do not want to change 'impact' ignore your opinion. Don't you equally ignore the opinion of people who think 'impact' is fine by insisting that the wording be changed based solely on your opinion? Cheers Michal
