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:

quoted

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. :)