On Thu, 06 Oct 2016, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> <silly vocab nitpicking>
>
> On Sun 2016-09-25 03:32:08 -0400, Tomi Ollila wrote:
>> 2) then, minor commit message related comment: if there is going to be v3,
>> in id:20160924200735.25425-2-adi@adirat.com adi mentioned 'next patches'
>> -- those are not patches (anymore) when commits are made, so it would be
>> better to reword that sentence. If anythine else doesn't come up, simplest
>> thing is to change the word to 'commits'. As said, this is minor thing,
>> and we have worse things in commit messages; if there is no need to send
>> v3, or the message change is forgotten then it may go in as it is now...
>
> Before these things are accepted into whatever you consider the
> canonical git repo to be, while they're still patches floating around in
> our various mailboxes, they aren't really "commits" either.  I'd use
> "changesets" as the generic term.
>
> </silly vocab nitpicking>

I have v3 ready to send (will send it later today when I get home).
I've reworded to use the word "commits".

IMO this is just bikeshedding. It doesn't matter how we call these,
either patches, commits, changesets are ok for me, just pleaso don't
make me reword these too many times.

>
>         --dkg