mbp at canonical.com
Fri Oct 13 02:19:27 BST 2006
On 13/10/2006, at 11:00 , John Arbash Meinel wrote:
>> I don't think it's incorrect as originally written, though yours
>> be clearer. Sometimes I try to say "may be clearer as".
> This seems to have too many commas:
> Keep a record of a future object, and, on request, load it.
> How about:
> """Keep a record of a possible object.
> When requested, load and return it.
> I'm happy to clean up documentation. Though I'm a little concerned it
> may become one more hoop to jump through before we can merge anything.
> And it is also a place that can be subject to a lot of bike-shedding.
Yes, grammar, like bike shed color, is something it's easy for people
to have an opinion on or pick nits in. The guideline should be:
review for *substance* not apostrophes; if you happen to notice small
things along the way then feel free to mention them.
There is also a risk of a perverse incentive against documentation:
your patch added really good docstring coverage, but as a result got
these extra review steps.
More information about the bazaar