This indicative mood is something I would send back for correction or correct myself where I am the maintainer. However I understand that although this is pretty consistent through FOSS, it is not a settled matter especially in corpo-land. Most important is that it is consistent within a project. See many differing views here on Stackoverflow, noting the most popular answer though is imperative as Linus requests.
And here it is in the kernel contribution documentation.
Simple example:
So the commit says what applying the patch will do, not what you worked on.
The same two comments every single time he is shared. … but yeah, no-captions gang here.
No I’m Spartacus.
It really forks the llamas ass!
Strange times that your comment is both wrong and perfectly sensible.
I’m not saying what they’ll do but the concept of the French being “revolutioned out” borders on comical. It may be beheadings or merely stacking trash in the street, but they aren’t known for staying quiet.
Single combat?
It does mean something. It may not have enforcement teeth, as it is a strictly diplomatic body. However, it still illustrates the state of things and has an impact on international relations.
deleted by creator
🎶 Iiiinn west Philippine Sea born and raised.
I feel like you are neither fully appreciating the scope of the control exerted over them nor the scale of the distances and hostility of terrain. I understand the sentiment, but what you’re suggesting is essentially tantamount to suicide. That may itself have merit, but call it what it is.
Fortunately, they aren’t being asked to do that. All the rust team was requesting was metadata about the call signatures so that they could have a grasp on expected behavior.
I also think of The Ultimate Showdown too when I see this.
I had forgotten about Macromedia. I liked Dreamweaver before Adobe got its hands on it.
It doesn’t mean that. Your inability or refusal to read a dictionary is your issue to deal with. I’ve lead you to the information. Now you just sound like a flat earther.
Every place that has ever been settled, has been settled at least once without inhabitants. You can use low order logic to arrive at that conclusion. But you don’t need to, as you are alive in the 21st century and seem to have access to the internet. Just go look at a dictionary. It is the only thing relevant here because a word’s definition is the only thing about which I have made assertions. If you are arguing connotative implications, I’ve already made it clear I have no issue with that.
If you just like to argue nonsense positions to hear your keyboard clack, cool. Have fun with that.
the dictionary doesn’t explain the etymology, nuance and history
One example since 1900
So… does history matter here or not? Tough to set those goalposts is a way that isn’t paradoxical.
And no, I’m not going to contrive some example within your stringent framework because as far as I know one doesn’t exist. But, then I can’t think of any examples where humans moved in somewhere without breathable air either, so the presence of breathable air must be included in the definition of settle too, right? Do you realize how foolish your claim sounds. Just to clarify, I’m only asserting that “to settle” doesn’t require the taking of others land by definition. I said it does generally involve that because all habitable land is currently inhabited, but that is the only reason.
Binary question, does the term require taking land from others? Really think about that. Just because two things are related, even if inextricably linked, doesn’t mean the terms are unified to the same meaning. Just because we all breathe air doesn’t mean “to breathe” requires air. In fact, fish breathe quite differently. Eating generally involves chewing, but does the term “eat” necessitate chewing? Surely not, since many animals swallow food whole. Don’t some animals like birds, bees, wasps, opportunistic ants “settle” places after previous tenants have moved out of a location?
If a people migrated entirely out of a land, would the next people that made use of the land not be “settling” that land since they weren’t taking it? It sure feels to me like that is what you’re saying, and if you aren’t, then we don’t disagree. Settling is about coming to inhabit a place whether or not it is currently inhabited.
Every place that is currently inhabited was settled at least one time when no others lived there. It really doesn’t matter that you want to set the goalposts somewhere that fits some niche definition you are cultivating. You simply don’t seem to know what the word means.
I get that you believe that the term “settle” implies expelling others from a land, and if that were the case, you’d have a point. But I wonder if you’ve considered consulting a dictionary and the possibility that you’re mistaken.
What I’m saying is that “settlers” is a superset of what is happening here, since “settle” doesn’t imply anything beyond:
to establish in residence
to furnish with inhabitants – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/settle
to arrive, especially from another country, in a new place and start to live there and use the land – https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/settle
I’ve no doubt that you’ll push back on this and claim the definition in your head is better than those found in dictionaries, but the rest of us are just aware what it means.
deleted by creator