4 ms·

"They merged the pull request" sounds fine to me.

coldtea 3y ago
As the parent notes though, "the passive also allows you to choose whether you want to call out the source of an action", while "they merged the pull request" does not.
- medstrom 3y ago
  That part, I do not get. Do they mean it permits a rewrite? But all sentences do.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    They mean it allows you to not point out who did the merge. If the PR introduced a BUG or was a bad choice to merge it, you might not want to use an active form, because then you have to say who did it (for example, in a report), to protect them, or to not appear like you're pointing fingers. The passive voice allows you to state the fact that the commit was merged, without mentioning anybody. "John/Jil merged the pull request" vs "The pull request was merged" - you can chose whether you want to include "by John/Jil" or not.
kd5bjo 3y ago
In context, though, the passive version can sometimes make for smoother reading. My general rule of thumb is that each sentence should establish context at the beginning by referring to the preceding material and then introduce its new idea at the end— Whether it’s best to start with the maintainer or the pull request depends on which of those you’ve already been discussing. (I didn’t come up with this idea, but I unfortunately can’t remember where it came from)
- svat 3y ago
  Possibly from here? * The Science of Scientific Writing (1990) by George Gopen and Judith Swan: https://web.archive.org/web/20240120063715/https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/the-long-view/the-science-of-scientific-writing https://web.archive.org/web/20240120063715/https://www.ameri... They say: > In our experience, the misplacement of old and new information turns out to be the No. 1 problem in American professional writing today. […] Put in the topic position [the beginning of the sentence] the old information that links backward; put in the stress position [the end of the sentence] the new information you want the reader to emphasize. It's a useful article, that I also mentioned in this answer: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/85286/why-do-researchers-sometimes-use-extremely-complicated-english-sentences-to-conv/85472#85472:~:text=The%20other%20article%20(The%20Science%20of%20Scientific%20Writing https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/85286/why-do-re... — see also this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLPCdDp_LE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLPCdDp_LE0 of Judy Swan, one of the co-authors (the accompanying handout is https://web.archive.org/web/20170331212200/https://www.cmu.edu/student-org/pcr/media-files/pcr-sessions/swan_summary.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170331212200/https://www.cmu.e...).

As the parent notes though, "the passive also allows you to choose whether you want to call out the source of an action", while "they merged the pull request" does not.

medstrom 3y ago
That part, I do not get. Do they mean it permits a rewrite? But all sentences do.
- coldtea 3y ago
  They mean it allows you to not point out who did the merge. If the PR introduced a BUG or was a bad choice to merge it, you might not want to use an active form, because then you have to say who did it (for example, in a report), to protect them, or to not appear like you're pointing fingers. The passive voice allows you to state the fact that the commit was merged, without mentioning anybody. "John/Jil merged the pull request" vs "The pull request was merged" - you can chose whether you want to include "by John/Jil" or not.

kd5bjo 3y ago

In context, though, the passive version can sometimes make for smoother reading. My general rule of thumb is that each sentence should establish context at the beginning by referring to the preceding material and then introduce its new idea at the end— Whether it’s best to start with the maintainer or the pull request depends on which of those you’ve already been discussing. (I didn’t come up with this idea, but I unfortunately can’t remember where it came from)

svat 3y ago
Possibly from here? * The Science of Scientific Writing (1990) by George Gopen and Judith Swan: https://web.archive.org/web/20240120063715/https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/the-long-view/the-science-of-scientific-writing https://web.archive.org/web/20240120063715/https://www.ameri... They say: > In our experience, the misplacement of old and new information turns out to be the No. 1 problem in American professional writing today. […] Put in the topic position [the beginning of the sentence] the old information that links backward; put in the stress position [the end of the sentence] the new information you want the reader to emphasize. It's a useful article, that I also mentioned in this answer: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/85286/why-do-researchers-sometimes-use-extremely-complicated-english-sentences-to-conv/85472#85472:~:text=The%20other%20article%20(The%20Science%20of%20Scientific%20Writing https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/85286/why-do-re... — see also this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLPCdDp_LE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLPCdDp_LE0 of Judy Swan, one of the co-authors (the accompanying handout is https://web.archive.org/web/20170331212200/https://www.cmu.edu/student-org/pcr/media-files/pcr-sessions/swan_summary.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170331212200/https://www.cmu.e...).