On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:03:12AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 08:38:31AM -0500, Michael Roth wrote: > > I've been periodically revising/rewording my comments since I saw you're > > original comments to Brijesh a few versions back, but it's how I normally > > talk when discussing code with people so it keeps managing to sneak back in. > > Oh sure, happens to me too and I know it is hard to keep out but when > you start doing git archeology and start going through old commit > messages, wondering why stuff was done the way it is sitting there, > you'd be very grateful if someone actually took the time to write up the > "why" properly. Why was it done this way, what the constraints were, > yadda yadda. > > And when you see a "we" there, you sometimes wonder, who's "we"? Was it > the party who submitted the code, was it the person who's submitting the > code but talking with the generic voice of a programmer who means "we" > the community writing the kernel, etc. > > So yes, it is ambiguous and it probably wasn't a big deal at all when > the people writing the kernel all knew each other back then but that > long ain't the case anymore. So we (see, snuck in on me too :)) ... so > maintainers need to pay attention to those things now too. > > Oh look, the last "we" above meant "maintainers". > > I believe that should explain with a greater detail what I mean. > > :-) Thanks for the explanation, makes perfect sense. Just need to get my brain on the same page. :)
