Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > That's why I don't think this proposal is useful. If we accept this > series we're going to be left with an active recommendation for a > pattern that's already almost nonexistent in our documentation. > > Perhaps that's because we're doing it 98% right already and aren't using > "he" or "she" but "they" or "their". The multiple ways you can use > "they" or "their" in the English language makes that hard to grep for. A > lot of our "they"'s are referring e.g. to a command-line option, or > "their" referring to "their arguments", as in the argv vector of a > program. > > The skepticism about this being needed at all isn't an opinion I hold > about software documentation in general, but about software in Git's > problem space specifically. Plus I find it odd that as soon as a progressive issue comes forward everyone suddenly flips the rules not only of proposed changes, but logic in general. The burden of proof should be on the side that is proposing the change to explain why it's better that the current situation, not to the opposing side to explain why it isn't. "I like X" is not an argument in favor of a proposed change, you need to explain why the current status quo is not OK. Every patch is subjected to this standard, why should this series be exempted? The side for the motion has not yet explained what's wrong with the current practice of avoiding pronouns altogether, or using "she" and "he" interchangeably. Even worse, they are assuming they already won the debate and are not even engaging with the opposing arguments. Ignoring arguments against your beliefs is not conducive to growth. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
