> You're nitpicking commit messages. I am occasionally trying to achieve corresponding improvements. > This is exactly the kind of thing which drives people away. Would you like to follow official patch process documentation? > Dan's commit message is fine. I have got the impression that he indicates another deviation from a well-known requirement. I am curious under which circumstances such a patch review concern will be taken into account finally. > It's actually hilarious because your emails are so unclear that I > can't understand them. I find such feedback surprising and interesting. I hope that we can reduce understanding difficulties together. > I have no idea what "collateral evolution" means This term expresses the situation that a single change can trigger further changes. Examples for programmers: A) * You add an argument to an used function. * How many function calls will need related adjustments? B) * Some function calls can fail. * How do you think about to complete error detection and the corresponding exception handling? > and yet you use it in almost every email. You exaggerate here. > Why can't you use the same terminology the rest of us use? I got also used to some wording approaches. Which terminology variation do you prefer? Regards, Markus
