On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 09:06:40AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Michal Suchánek wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 06:13:02PM -0500, Varun Varada wrote: > > > > > This will bring in reviews that focus on hairsplitting when the > > > > formulation with 'impact' reads better than 'effect' and where the > > > > change does not make it read any better so it should not be changed. > > > > > > > > It also brings in reviews of the sort that simply say that use of > > > > 'impact' is OK, and there is no need to change. > > > > > > That's an "if". This, however, is a situation where multiple people > > > > We already received such reviews as response to your patch. It's not > > what-if. > > In case you haven't been following this thread closely, you are the only > person that says the use of "impact" is OK. One person said "impact" was Apparently you have not followed this thread closely yourself. > OK for him, but he didn't say anything of anybody else. Another person > asked if they were synonyms. That's it. > > I say Varun should resend the patch separate from all other patches, > explain why they aren't synonyms and mention for the record that one > person objects to the change. No if he really wants the thing merged he should resend the patch with proper reasoning how replacing the word 'impact' improves the documentation and perhaps say for the record that two people find the word confusing. > > It's OK to merge patches where one person objects. Apprantly you also missed that I am not opposed to the patch. Best regards Michal > > -- > Felipe Contreras
