Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] CodingGuidelines: recommend singular they

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
To: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, sandals@crustytoothpaste.net,
	jrnieder@gmail.com, emilyshaffer@google.com,
	Andrei Rybak <rybak.a.v@gmail.com>,
	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>,
	Robert Karszniewicz <avoidr@posteo.de>, Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
	"Kerry, Richard" <richard.kerry@atos.net>,
	Phillip Susi <phill@thesusis.net>,
	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
	Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
	Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>,
	Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] CodingGuidelines: recommend singular they
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 13:44:07 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <695e78ed-25cf-69e6-8bc1-dad8e55be697@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqbl86qtyf.fsf@gitster.g>

On 6/16/2021 1:06 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
>> FWIW, I am not happy with this version for that reason, either.
>>
>> I wonder if replacing the first two bullet points ("Removing" and
>> "If you need to talk about") above with what was added to the
>> CodingGuidelines by the "succinct matter-of-factly description" in
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/87a6nz2fda.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/
>>
>> would be sufficient.
> 
> So, here is what I plan to queue on top of these four patches to
> replace my "not even draft" garbage with what you wrote, with a bit
> of copyediting.
> 
> Comments?
...
> +  - Prefer succinctness and matter-of-factly describing functionality
> +    in the abstract.  E.g.
> +
> +     --short:: Emit output in the short-format.
> +
> +    and avoid something like these overly verbose alternatives:
> +
> +     --short:: Use this to emit output in the short-format.
> +     --short:: You can use this to get output in the short-format.
> +     --short:: A user who prefers shorter output could....
> +     --short:: Should a person and/or program want shorter output, he
> +               she/they/it can...
> +
> +    This practice often eliminates the need to involve human actors in
> +    your description, but it is a good practice regardless of the
> +    avoidance of gendered pronouns.

I wasn't a huge fan of this "example first" approach, but you did
a good job of tying it to the purpose and the rest of the
recommendations.

> +  - When it becomes awkward to stick to this style, prefer "you" when
> +    addressing the the hypothetical user, and possibly "we" when
> +    discussing how the program might react to the user.  E.g.
> +
> +      You can use this option instead of --xyz, but we might remove
> +      support for it in future versions.
> +
> +    while keeping in mind that you can probably be less verbose, e.g.
> +
> +      Use this instead of --xyz. This option might be removed in future
> +      versions.
> +
> +  - If you still need to refer to an example person that is
> +    third-person singular, you may resort to "singular they" to avoid
> +    "he/she/him/her", e.g.
> +
> +      A contributor asks their upstream to pull from them.
> +
> +    Note that this sounds ungrammatical and unnatural to those who
> +    learned English as a second language in some parts of the world.

This version looks good to me. It is probably worth adding Ævar in
a Co-authored-by line.

Thanks,
-Stolee