mirror of
https://github.com/semver/semver.git
synced 2026-07-11 06:53:03 -05:00
[GH-ISSUE #384] Document should be written in 3rd person, passive voice #2019
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/semver#2019
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @dinamicoplus on GitHub (Jul 21, 2017).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/semver/semver/issues/384
Originally assigned to: @steveklabnik on GitHub.
I have noticed the entire document is written in 1st person. I find this strange because the text aims to be a standard and it feels very informal if it is written the way it is. I know maybe because it is a recommendation and not a proper "formal text" but even though I think it should be rewritten in 3rd person.
@daanhaitsma commented on GitHub (Sep 25, 2017):
I completely agree. Was very surprised to read "I propose a simple set of rules" in a document like this.
@Speldosa commented on GitHub (Mar 28, 2018):
Well, I don't have any problems with this with regards to the text's formality. However, examining all the approved pull requests, I don't know if you can say that this document has been authored by an "I". Maybe "we", but that might sound strange, so I agree that it should be rewritten in the 3rd person.
@jwdonahue commented on GitHub (Jul 14, 2018):
@dinamicoplus, are you volunteering to issue the PR for these changes?
I don't find the first person particularly troublesome in an introduction to a specification. Seems rather routine to me. In fact, "I propose a simple set of rules", has been in the spec since the 1.0.0-beta and as far I can tell, you're the first person to call it out as an issue. I certainly wouldn't object to changing it.
In case, please issue a PR or close this issue at your earliest possible convenience.
@aaaidan commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2021):
I think this may have been resolved, at least in part, by
da15534d.I upvoted this issue a while back, but the wording seems fine to me now.
@JohnTitor commented on GitHub (Aug 13, 2022):
Closing in favor of the above comment. Let me know if there's still an issue.