> I understood it as a comment about all major parties involved in this discussion and not to cause any harm.
Ditto.
> PS. No bike-shedding intended.
Hah! Well, I see it as a positive sign - if the need to discuss seemingly "trivial" issues is high, such as individual linebreaks, that usually means that they're more of a lightning rod getting all the energy instead of seeing lightning strike everywhere on non-"trivial" things. The energy invested in those discussions is an indication of the passion for the status quo and not exactly for or against... things like individual linebreaks. All of which is to be expected. So for me, I take it as an indication that we're getting along pretty well here. And yes, the openness is indeed a very positive thing! I have seen things go very wrong and developers getting very defensive for the heck of it.
For me, right now, there are three or four larger changes to commit to my little trove of PRs - mainly the "no one-liner ifs" rule, which requires an in-depth manual path - and then we're getting pretty close to having an agreement.