[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OT: ChangeLog stylistics

From: Stepan Kasal
Subject: Re: OT: ChangeLog stylistics
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:12:36 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i


On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:02:37PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stepan Kasal wrote on Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:13:50PM CET:
> > I though it's a problem of present vs. past tense, not active/passive voice.
> > 
> > The changelog informs about what _was done_ so there is no reason to use
> > present tense or imperative.
> I must confess to not have been sure whether it was present vs past, or
> active vs passive.

interestingly enough, Alexandre witnesses that Akim said we shall use

> Anyway, personally I don't care much, [...]

Neither do I.  When I don't think about it, I tend to use impperative, which
corresponds with Alexandre's requirement.

> FWIW,  info standards "Simple Changes" contains:
> |    * keyboard.c (Fcommand_execute): New arg SPECIAL.
> |    All callers changed.

Well, this phrase seems to be an exception: I tend to use it, not "change
all callers".


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]