From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27EA820954 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 15:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751539AbdKVPNV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:13:21 -0500 Received: from cisrsmtp4.univ-lyon1.fr ([134.214.188.147]:60154 "EHLO cisrsmtp4.univ-lyon1.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751438AbdKVPNU (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Nov 2017 10:13:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisrsmtp4.univ-lyon1.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEB5A0427; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:13:18 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cisrsmtp4.univ-lyon1.fr Received: from cisrsmtp4.univ-lyon1.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (cisrsmtp4.univ-lyon1.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O1Ak4b2bTtav; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:13:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from BEMBX2013-02.univ-lyon1.fr (bembx2013-02.univ-lyon1.fr [134.214.201.248]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by cisrsmtp4.univ-lyon1.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E0B1A003F; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:13:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from BEMBX2013-01.univ-lyon1.fr (2002:86d6:c9f7::86d6:c9f7) by BEMBX2013-02.univ-lyon1.fr (2002:86d6:c9f8::86d6:c9f8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:13:17 +0100 Received: from BEMBX2013-01.univ-lyon1.fr ([fe80::b1ea:14ef:61b9:d4cd]) by BEMBX2013-01.univ-lyon1.fr ([fe80::b1ea:14ef:61b9:d4cd%15]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:13:17 +0100 From: ALBERTIN TIMOTHEE p1514771 To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_=C5gren?= CC: Git Mailing List , "danielbensoussanbohm@gmail.com" , PAYRE NATHAN p1508475 , MOY MATTHIEU Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation about triangular workflow Thread-Topic: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation about triangular workflow Thread-Index: AQHTX75nW1NbRUFw+0OfOC4ezq/91KMZARWAgAeEv5c= Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 15:13:17 +0000 Message-ID: <1511367199220.88867@etu.univ-lyon1.fr> References: <20171117160759.6397-1-daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [134.214.126.172] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org >On 17 November 2017 at 17:07, Daniel Bensoussan > wrote: >> +- If the maintainer accepts the changes, he merges them into the >> + **UPSTREAM** repository. >Personally, I would prefer "they" and "their" over "he" and "his". I'm >not sure how universal this preference is, but see also 715a51bcaf (am: >counteract gender bias, 2016-07-08). I realize that "he" is already used >in this document... This could be a good thing in order to be neutral. We can change this in the whole file. >> + ... The contributor >> +was forced to create a mail which shows the difference between the >> +new and the old code, and then send it to a maintainer to commit >> +and push it. This isn't convenient at all, neither for the >> +contributor, neither for the maintainer. >"neither ... nor". That said, I find the tone of this paragraph a bit >value-loaded ("forced ... isn't convenient at all"). It does sort of >contradict or at least compare interestingly with how git.git itself is >maintained. ;-) Maybe this could be framed in a more neutral way? Junio C Hamano told us the same thing about the motivation section, we'll change it the next patch. >> +The goal of the triangular workflow is also that the rest of the >> +community or the company can review the code before it's in production. >> +Everyone can read on **PUBLISH** so everyone can review code >> +before the maintainer(s) merge it to **UPSTREAM**. It also means >I think you can drop the "(s)". Your example workflow could have a >single maintainer. In a multi-maintainer workflow, the workflow would >still be the same. So no need to cover all bases by sprinkling "(s)" on >the text. (IMHO.) We'll fix that. Thank you for your review. Timothée Albertin