On 6/15/2021 2:02 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Or, if we just fix these existing occurrences as a one-off there'll be >> no existing examples of it in-tree, and as people tend to imitate >> existing documentation they're unlikely to introduce new >> occurrences. > > I suspect that may be a bit too optimistic. It is too easy to > discuss interaction among users and introduce pronouns to refer to > them, and when it happens, it is far easier to have a document to > point at and tell them why we want them to rephrase if not how > exactly. For that reason, I'd prefer to have some word about the > desire to make examples and explanations gender-neutral in the > guidelines. The mechanics we recommend to achieve the goal does not > have to be specified if we want brevity---that can be learned by > imitating existing practices. Thanks. This was the whole intention of this series: to land on a policy that improves our understanding of gendered pronouns and be able to point to it when the situation arises again, even if that is a rare occasion. While my initial recommendation wasn't accepted, I'm glad we are coming to an agreement. >> If and when Felipe's <20210611202819.47077-1-felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> >> is applied how small is the diff you'll still have rebased on top of >> that? > > I just retried a "competing" merge that got ugly ;-) > > Between Derrick's two "singular they" patches (one for comments, the > other for docs) and Felipe's two patches (the same split), they > touch identical base text. Only the way they neuter the description > is different, and to me the latter feels a bit more ESL friendly. > > So, the main things that are missing from Felipe's version that we > may want to build on top before the whole discussion can be > concluded are: > > - Derrick's "typofix" patch, but if I recall correctly it needed a > fix-up in one of its hunks? > > - Guidelines; you had a more generic readability tips that would > (incidentally) result in nudging the writers to be more gender > neutral, which I think is going in the right direction, but I do > prefer to see an explicit mention of gender-neutrality as one > bullet item. I will send a v3 soon with Felipe's two patches, a fixed typo patch, and a new set of guidelines. Thanks, -Stolee
