OP said it was to notify you when an alarm went off, not when it ran out of batteries.
bjorney
joined 2 years ago
You seem content to entirely gloss over the issue, which isn't the pros/cons of a particular writing style, it's that the maintainer could have said ANY of the things you said, but he didn't
If I was the maintainer, I too would probably reject the PR because it didn’t remove the gender entirely.
Cool, but that isn't what happened here. The PR was closed immediately because the maintainer considered using gender neutral pronouns "personal politics" - he had ample opportunity to clarify his stance, or simply comment 'resubmit in passive voice', but he didn't. Clearly the problem wasn't the active voice, it was the summary of the change, because when that exact same PR was re-submitted much later with a commit message of 'Fix some minor ESL grammar issues', it was accepted with no discussion
As an aside, I absolutely disagree with the use of passive voice. It's more verbose, and harder for the reader to comprehend. It's why every style guide (APA, Chicago, IEEE, etc) recommends sticking to active voice, especially in the context of 'doing things'.
If goes against established norms here
What's the established norm here. All people compiling software by source are male?
he said politically motivated changes aren't welcome
What's politically motivated about changing "he" to "they". As you said, gender doesn't apply here, so the neutral word is literally preferable.
Yes, I'm sure that PR would have been accepted instead /s
But you're right, it doesn't matter at all, the reasonable thing to do would have been for the guy to spend 3 seconds clicking the accept and merge button, or 6 seconds making your change. instead he wrote a comment stating that inclusive language has no place in his project
https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814#issuecomment-830793992
Really?
This screams "women not wanted" to me
it's literally easier to do on a technical level
I wouldn't go that far. It's still trivially easy, and arguably best practice, but it's certainly more complicated than issuing an in-place update
It's been around for a long time. It was very popular back in like 2017, but fell off because it's value proposition was "we are a shitty fork of the Litecoin codebase with a few constants changed (which was in itself a shitty fork of the Bitcoin codebase with a few constants changed) and no other meaningful changes"
Do your research.
https://www.coinlore.com/coin/digibyte/richlist
1000 people hold 66% of all digibyte in existence lol
If the code doesn't change, the resulting docker image will have the same hash, and a new image won't be created
https://github.com/jackett/jackett/releases
Jackett is literally just releasing a new version every day
Wonder if that includes Uber eats?
view more: next ›
Not an American, but basically decide how much risk you want to take on - then depending on that answer set aside money (0-40%) for safe investments - things like bonds (guaranteed returns) or potentially gold (lower volatility). The rest goes into a 80/20 (or 60/40, or 90/10, no one can say what's best) split between domestic and international index funds. Things like the S&P500, Dow, and US whole market index, and then some into EU, Asia/Oceana, and emerging market index funds.