Clearly, "changes may not be necessary" was the original intended meaning. In other words, if all goes well...
You are mis-quoting the pre-edited tutorial text; it
actually read:
"no changes may be necessary", and, had it not been possibly ambiguous, the OP wouldn't have been edited to clarify, would it?
Yes, I can be pedantic if need be, and if I find something to be possibly confusing (without it needing to be) I shall mention it. It's called having an eye for details, and I didn't whine and gripe like many people would, I politely and kindly suggested it could be (and was) a potential source of confusion, and now it's fixed. If Jony Ive designed something poorly - say the hole in a piece of aluminium was off-centre and wouldn't fit, do you think he'd just say
"Ah, that'll do"? No, he'd start again and fix it. With text, this is a 5 second task - utterly trivial, and for someone to waltz along and
criticise someone for pointing out ambiguous grammar, well that is plain idiotic.
Meaning something and effectively conveying that meaning are entirely different things. Anyhow, lest we prolong this redundancy, I see no further fruitful reason to discuss it.
