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 :)