Write the three sites in the first person instead of naming a role - #230
Merged
Conversation
) Three tracked files described me from outside with a role word. I write in the first person here, so the word is gone from all four of its sites and each sentence now says the thing it was actually about. docs/promotion.md said an experiment does not gain that role by being taken somewhere. What the sentence means is that nobody takes on keeping it working, and it now says so. docs/quality-parity.md gave the reason for a required approving review count of zero as a property of the board's staffing. The reason is mine: I am the only reviewer here, and a count above zero would refuse every merge. internal/invariants/invariants.go named the tracker issue by that role twice, once in the comment on the declared licence and once in the message the licence leg prints when it was not asked. Both now name issue #46, which is how every other reference to it in this tree is written and is a pointer a reader can follow. The failure this prevents is text that reports on me in the third person outliving the reason anybody wrote it that way, and a reference that can only be resolved by knowing who is meant. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #229.
What changed
Three tracked files carried a role word describing me from outside, at four
sites. All four are rewritten and none of them was replaced with a synonym.
docs/promotion.mdsaid an experiment does not gain that role by being takensomewhere. The sentence is about nobody taking on the duty of keeping the code
working, so it now says that instead of naming a post.
docs/quality-parity.mdjustifiedrequired_approving_review_count: 0by aproperty of the board's staffing. The reason is mine and is now written as
mine: I am the only reviewer here, and a count above zero would refuse every
merge.
internal/invariants/invariants.gonamed the tracker issue by that role twiceDeclaredLicenceand in theNotAskedmessage the licenceleg prints. Both now name issue Decisions of mine this plan does not take #46, which is how every other reference to that
issue in this tree is written and is a pointer a reader can follow instead of
having to know who is meant.
The done-condition, run against the head of this branch
The issue's done-condition is that a case-insensitive grep for the word returns
only files whose vocabulary is somebody else's - a licence, a code of conduct
adopted verbatim, a platform syntax. Run at
7a24e99:It returns nothing at all, so there is no file of that last kind to name
here. The issue asked me to list each such file with its reason; the list is
empty rather than omitted.
LICENSEandDCOare the two files in this treewhose text I did not write, and neither of them contains the word - which is
why the grep above is empty rather than showing two lines.
The means
Prose in the two documents and a comment plus a format string in Go, all of
them the means the files already use. Nothing is added: no language, no
runtime, no dependency, no new file. The change is four sentences, so the
means question here is only whether it belongs in the files that carry the
sentences, and it does.
Evidence, run on this branch before pushing
TestTheLicenceLegSaysWhetherItWasAskedasserts that theNotAskedmessagestill names
#47, and it does: only the phrase carrying the role word moved,and the issue reference the test reads is untouched. That test is inside the
internal/invariantsline above and also runs in the invariants workflow.What this does not do
It does not touch the four sentences' meaning anywhere except where naming the
role WAS the meaning, and in
docs/promotion.mdthat is the one place a readershould check me: I read "does not gain a role-holder" as "nobody takes on
keeping it working", and if that reading is wrong the sentence is now wrong in
a way the grep cannot see.
It adds no guard. Nothing in this tree refuses the word, so a fifth site
written tomorrow lands green. Making that refusable is not attempted here and
this pull request claims no protection against a recurrence.
This change has had no second reader. The evidence above stands in place of
one rather than alongside one, and every line of it is a command run at the head
being pushed.