[PATCH 0/2] Avoid gender pronouns

The latest solution looking for a problem [1] is to use the actively
debated among linguists singular "they" [2].

Leaving aside the linguistic intricacies that not all singular "they" are
equal [3], and the overwhelming sentiment that these kinds of political
discussions don't provide value for this community [4], the "issue" can
be easily solved by simply using different wording.

  - The reviewer herself
  + The reviewers themselves

Problem solved.

Cheers.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.975.git.1623085069.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2013/01/singular-their-affront-good-writing/319329/
[3] https://ahdictionary.tumblr.com/post/147597257733/updated-usage-note-they
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/git/87wnrooa17.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/

Felipe Contreras (2):
  doc: avoid using the gender of other people
  comments: avoid using the gender of our users

 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 5 ++---
 Documentation/git-push.txt      | 4 ++--
 Documentation/user-manual.txt   | 2 +-
 commit.c                        | 2 +-
 config.h                        | 4 ++--
 date.c                          | 2 +-
 pathspec.h                      | 2 +-
 strbuf.h                        | 4 ++--
 wt-status.c                     | 2 +-
 9 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

-- 
2.32.0

We generally avoid specifying the gender of our users in order to be
more politically correct, but sometimes due to lack of time and/or
creativity a few slip by.

Since by doing a little bit of rewording we can avoid this irrelevant
detail, let's do so.

Inspired-by: Derrick Stolee [off-list ref]
Helped-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref]
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <redacted>
---
 commit.c    | 2 +-
 config.h    | 4 ++--
 date.c      | 2 +-
 pathspec.h  | 2 +-
 strbuf.h    | 4 ++--
 wt-status.c | 2 +-
 6 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c
index 8ea55a447f..143f472c0f 100644
--- a/commit.c
+++ b/commit.c

@@ -1178,7 +1178,7 @@ static void handle_signed_tag(struct commit *parent, struct commit_extra_header
 	/*
 	 * We could verify this signature and either omit the tag when
 	 * it does not validate, but the integrator may not have the
-	 * public key of the signer of the tag he is merging, while a
+	 * public key of the signer of the tag being merged, while a
 	 * later auditor may have it while auditing, so let's not run
 	 * verify-signed-buffer here for now...
 	 *

diff --git a/config.h b/config.h
index 9038538ffd..a2200f3111 100644
--- a/config.h
+++ b/config.h

@@ -450,8 +450,8 @@ void git_configset_init(struct config_set *cs);
 /**
  * Parses the file and adds the variable-value pairs to the `config_set`,
  * dies if there is an error in parsing the file. Returns 0 on success, or
- * -1 if the file does not exist or is inaccessible. The user has to decide
- * if he wants to free the incomplete configset or continue using it when
+ * -1 if the file does not exist or is inaccessible. The caller decides
+ * whether to free the incomplete configset or continue using it when
  * the function returns -1.
  */
 int git_configset_add_file(struct config_set *cs, const char *filename);

diff --git a/date.c b/date.c
index f9ea807b3a..5c35f2bdfe 100644
--- a/date.c
+++ b/date.c

@@ -908,7 +908,7 @@ int parse_expiry_date(const char *date, timestamp_t *timestamp)
 		/*
 		 * We take over "now" here, which usually translates
 		 * to the current timestamp.  This is because the user
-		 * really means to expire everything she has done in
+		 * really means to expire everything that has been done in
 		 * the past, and by definition reflogs are the record
 		 * of the past, and there is nothing from the future
 		 * to be kept.

diff --git a/pathspec.h b/pathspec.h
index fceebb876f..2341dc9901 100644
--- a/pathspec.h
+++ b/pathspec.h

@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ struct pathspec {
  *
  * A similar process is applied when a new pathspec magic is added. The designer
  * lifts the GUARD_PATHSPEC restriction in the functions that support the new
- * magic. At the same time (s)he has to make sure this new feature will be
+ * magic while at the same time making sure this new feature will be
  * caught at parse_pathspec() in commands that cannot handle the new magic in
  * some cases. grepping parse_pathspec() should help.
  */

diff --git a/strbuf.h b/strbuf.h
index 223ee2094a..a86dcaaf44 100644
--- a/strbuf.h
+++ b/strbuf.h

@@ -337,8 +337,8 @@ const char *strbuf_join_argv(struct strbuf *buf, int argc,
  * placeholder is unknown, then the percent sign is copied, too.
  *
  * In order to facilitate caching and to make it possible to give
- * parameters to the callback, `strbuf_expand()` passes a context pointer,
- * which can be used by the programmer of the callback as she sees fit.
+ * parameters to the callback, `strbuf_expand()` passes a context
+ * pointer with any kind of data.
  */
 typedef size_t (*expand_fn_t) (struct strbuf *sb,
 			       const char *placeholder,

diff --git a/wt-status.c b/wt-status.c
index 42b6735716..ebc0c0da1a 100644
--- a/wt-status.c
+++ b/wt-status.c

@@ -639,7 +639,7 @@ static void wt_status_collect_changes_index(struct wt_status *s)
 		 * mode by passing a command line option we do not ignore any
 		 * changed submodule SHA-1s when comparing index and HEAD, no
 		 * matter what is configured. Otherwise the user won't be
-		 * shown any submodules she manually added (and which are
+		 * shown any submodules manually added (and which are
 		 * staged to be committed), which would be really confusing.
 		 */
 		handle_ignore_submodules_arg(&rev.diffopt, "dirty");

-- 
2.32.0

Some people have a problem with using a female reviewer or a female
developer as an example, and since this is an irrelevant detail, let's
say goodbye to our illustrative female colleagues.

Inspired-by: Derrick Stolee [off-list ref]
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <redacted>
---
 Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 5 ++---
 Documentation/git-push.txt      | 4 ++--
 Documentation/user-manual.txt   | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index 55287d72e0..3e215f4d80 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches

@@ -373,9 +373,8 @@ If you like, you can put extra tags at the end:
 . `Acked-by:` says that the person who is more familiar with the area
   the patch attempts to modify liked the patch.
 . `Reviewed-by:`, unlike the other tags, can only be offered by the
-  reviewer and means that she is completely satisfied that the patch
-  is ready for application.  It is usually offered only after a
-  detailed review.
+  reviewers themselves when they are completely satisfied with the
+  patch after a detailed analysis.
 . `Tested-by:` is used to indicate that the person applied the patch
   and found it to have the desired effect.
 

diff --git a/Documentation/git-push.txt b/Documentation/git-push.txt
index a953c7c387..2f25aa3a29 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-push.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-push.txt

@@ -244,8 +244,8 @@ Imagine that you have to rebase what you have already published.
 You will have to bypass the "must fast-forward" rule in order to
 replace the history you originally published with the rebased history.
 If somebody else built on top of your original history while you are
-rebasing, the tip of the branch at the remote may advance with her
-commit, and blindly pushing with `--force` will lose her work.
+rebasing, the tip of the branch at the remote may advance with their
+commit, and blindly pushing with `--force` will lose their work.
 +
 This option allows you to say that you expect the history you are
 updating is what you rebased and want to replace. If the remote ref

diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt
index f9e54b8674..96240598e3 100644
--- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt
+++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt

@@ -2792,7 +2792,7 @@ A fast-forward looks something like this:
 
 In some cases it is possible that the new head will *not* actually be
 a descendant of the old head.  For example, the developer may have
-realized she made a serious mistake, and decided to backtrack,
+realized a serious mistake was made and decided to backtrack,
 resulting in a situation like:
 
 ................................................

-- 
2.32.0

Hi Felipe,

On 12/06/21 03.28, Felipe Contreras wrote:

The latest solution looking for a problem [1] is to use the actively
debated among linguists singular "they" [2].

Leaving aside the linguistic intricacies that not all singular "they" are
equal [3], and the overwhelming sentiment that these kinds of political
discussions don't provide value for this community [4], the "issue" can
be easily solved by simply using different wording.

   - The reviewer herself
   + The reviewers themselves

Problem solved.

So this patchset avoids any gender pronouns by changing single subject 
to many objects (plural), right?

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

Bagas Sanjaya wrote:

Hi Felipe,

On 12/06/21 03.28, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

The latest solution looking for a problem [1] is to use the actively
debated among linguists singular "they" [2].

Leaving aside the linguistic intricacies that not all singular "they" are
equal [3], and the overwhelming sentiment that these kinds of political
discussions don't provide value for this community [4], the "issue" can
be easily solved by simply using different wording.

   - The reviewer herself
   + The reviewers themselves

Problem solved.

So this patchset avoids any gender pronouns by changing single subject 
to many objects (plural), right?

That is just one example. A good writer like a good programmer uses
different tools for different situations.

Another tool used in this patchset is to make use of the passive voice:
she made a mistake -> a mistake was made. Another is singular "they"
(but used properly). And another is to just completely reword the
offending sentence.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 03:28:17PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:

The latest solution looking for a problem [1] is to use the actively
debated among linguists singular "they" [2].

Leaving aside the linguistic intricacies that not all singular "they" are
equal [3], and the overwhelming sentiment that these kinds of political
discussions don't provide value for this community [4], the "issue" can
be easily solved by simply using different wording.

  - The reviewer herself
  + The reviewers themselves

Problem solved.

Cheers.

Perfect, I like this. This style is clearer, more neutral, and more on
point.

Thanks,
Robert

On Fri, Jun 11 2021, Felipe Contreras wrote:

The latest solution looking for a problem [1] is to use the actively
debated among linguists singular "they" [2].

Leaving aside the linguistic intricacies that not all singular "they" are
equal [3], and the overwhelming sentiment that these kinds of political
discussions don't provide value for this community [4], the "issue" can
be easily solved by simply using different wording.

  - The reviewer herself
  + The reviewers themselves

Problem solved.

Cheers.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.975.git.1623085069.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2013/01/singular-their-affront-good-writing/319329/
[3] https://ahdictionary.tumblr.com/post/147597257733/updated-usage-note-they
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/git/87wnrooa17.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/

Felipe Contreras (2):
  doc: avoid using the gender of other people
  comments: avoid using the gender of our users

This looks good to me, especially the reduction in verbosity in hunks
like:
	
	- * parameters to the callback, `strbuf_expand()` passes a context pointer,
	- * which can be used by the programmer of the callback as she sees fit.
	+ * parameters to the callback, `strbuf_expand()` passes a context
	+ * pointer with any kind of data.

The comment gives you the same information, but now it takes a shorter
time to read it.

On 6/11/2021 4:28 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Some people have a problem with using a female reviewer or a female
developer as an example, and since this is an irrelevant detail, let's
say goodbye to our illustrative female colleagues.

I find this message to be snarky and underhanded instead of
actually describing the goals at hand. Citing the reason as
stated is _not_ the purpose of these gender-neutral
recommendations.

Instead, a message such as this could apply:

  Using gendered pronouns for an anonymous person applies a
  gender where none is known, and further excludes readers
  who do not use gendered pronouns. Avoid such examples in
  the documentation by using "they" or passive voice to
  avoid the need for a pronoun.

The textual edits in the patch are correct.

-Stolee

On 6/11/2021 4:28 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

We generally avoid specifying the gender of our users in order to be
more politically correct, but sometimes due to lack of time and/or
creativity a few slip by.

s/politically correct/inclusive/

Instead of "lack of time and/or creativity" perhaps be more
generous to our fellow contributors and instead say...

  but sometimes a few slip by due to habit.

nit: s/has been/was/

We can be a little more active here.

-Stolee

On Tue, 2021-06-15 at 09:31 -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:

  but sometimes a few slip by due to habit.

Or perhaps just, "but sometimes a few slip by" ?

No need to suggest a reason IMO.

Derrick Stolee wrote:

On 6/11/2021 4:28 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

Some people have a problem with using a female reviewer or a female
developer as an example, and since this is an irrelevant detail, let's
say goodbye to our illustrative female colleagues.

I find this message to be snarky and underhanded instead of
actually describing the goals at hand.

But it is accurate.

I have no problem when I read a text that uses a female reviwer as an
illustration. Apparently you do, and presumably others.

Citing the reason as stated is _not_ the purpose of these
gender-neutral recommendations.

I believe the purpose is to tailor the wording to you.

Instead, a message such as this could apply:

  Using gendered pronouns for an anonymous person applies a
  gender where none is known, and further excludes readers
  who do not use gendered pronouns.

It doesn't exclude the readers who do not use genedered pronouns.

Anna--a Finnish reader--may not use gendered pronouns herself, that
doesn't mean she automatically would have a problem when reading "she"
or "he", nor that she would feel excluded.


This patch is not for Anna--who has no problem reading an illustration
in English which uses a female colleague as illustration--this patch is
for you.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Derrick Stolee wrote:

On 6/11/2021 4:28 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

We generally avoid specifying the gender of our users in order to be
more politically correct, but sometimes due to lack of time and/or
creativity a few slip by.

s/politically correct/inclusive/

I don't believe avoiding pronouns makes us more inclusive, and I've yet
to see an example where any person would feel personally excluded from.

Instead of "lack of time and/or creativity" perhaps be more
generous to our fellow contributors and instead say...

I believe my wording is more generous because it implies they tried,
whereas yours implies they didn't even try.

  but sometimes a few slip by due to habit.

quoted

@@ -908,7 +908,7 @@ int parse_expiry_date(const char *date, timestamp_t *timestamp)
 		/*
 		 * We take over "now" here, which usually translates
 		 * to the current timestamp.  This is because the user
-		 * really means to expire everything she has done in
+		 * really means to expire everything that has been done in

nit: s/has been/was/

We can be a little more active here.

True. That's probably better.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Paul Smith wrote:

On Tue, 2021-06-15 at 09:31 -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote:

quoted

  but sometimes a few slip by due to habit.

Or perhaps just, "but sometimes a few slip by" ?

No need to suggest a reason IMO.

There's no need, but I would prefer to imply no ill intent, nor neglect,
iow: they tried.

But I'm fine with not specifying a reason too.

-- 
Felipe Contreras