Re: [PATCH] doc: reword gitworflows for neutrality

[Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>]

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Bensoussan
<daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr> wrote:
> doc: reword gitworflows for neutrality

s/gitworflows/gitworkflows/

> Changed 'he' to 'them' to be more neutral in "gitworkflows.txt".
>
> See discussion at: https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqqvahieeqy.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Timothee Albertin <timothee.albertin@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Payre <nathan.payre@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Bensoussan <daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
> ---
> diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt
> @@ -407,8 +407,8 @@ follows.
> -Occasionally, the maintainer may get merge conflicts when he tries to
> -pull changes from downstream.  In this case, he can ask downstream to
> +Occasionally, the maintainer may get merge conflicts when they try to
> +pull changes from downstream.  In this case, they can ask downstream to

As a native English speaker, I find the new phrasing odd, and think
this may a step backward. How about trying a different approach? For
example:

    Occasionally, the maintainer may get merge conflicts when trying
    to pull changes from downstream. In this case, it may make sense
    to ask downstream to do the merge and resolve the conflicts
    instead (since, presumably, downstream will know better how to
    resolve them).

>  do the merge and resolve the conflicts themselves (perhaps they will
>  know better how to resolve them).  It is one of the rare cases where
>  downstream 'should' merge from upstream.