On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:51 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Ilhan Polat <ilhanpolat@gmail.com> wrote:
I guess my second mail didn't make it to the server for some reason. I've written:
"I should have probably put a smiley in the end. I mean it quite lightly by the way. "
No problem at all, Matthew for one I'm not a native speaker and second you guys probably have seen more conflicts than I ever did. I just wanted to have the text a bit less formal.
Sure - no problem from my side - I completely agree that less formal is better ...
Thanks Bennett, Matthew and Ilhan. I agree that "be concise" can be misunderstood if not worded right.
Stefan commented on the PR "Points 5, 6, 7, and 8 seem less relevant to me, and less tied to principles. Consider cutting for the sake of brevity?". I think that's a good point, so would like to go with that. It also means we don't have to choose between your three versions of point 5:)
Excellent outcome - more concise :) Cheers, Matthew