Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Documentation: fix "should be use" grammar in ABI README

[Weijie Yuan]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 09:55:42AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > That is to say, when dealing with multiple authors, we suggest using
> > trailers to represent the sequence of authors in chronological order.
> > 
> > Then, this will facilitate subsequent readers to understand the
> > development history of the patch through the order of the trailers.(?)
> > 
> > And, aren't these subsequent examples merely confining the discussion to
> > these two trailers?
> 
> They seem to be but that's just a documentation deficiency IMO.

OK, let me take some time to look through the history of this file and
see if I can uncover any clues.

If this is indeed a flaw, it might be worth clarifying. That said, I am
not sure how many people actually find it ambiguous. In any case, it may
be better for someone with more experience to improve it, as I am
clearly not qualified to do so.

> > Besides the submitting-patches file, It seems to me that the probability
> > of "Signed-off-by" appearing on the last line is much higher than in
> > other cases. Is this a usual practice? It seems that everyone tacitly
> > agreed to write "Acked-by" and "Reviewed-by" at the top, even though
> > they occurred after "Sob".
> > 
> 
> I chose 2 files and looked at their "git log" history: MAINTAINERS and
> kernel/panic.c. In those files I see corroboration of my "claim," so I'm
> satisfied with it.

Makes sense. Perhaps different subsystems simply have different
preferences, then. My observation may not have been representative.

Thanks.