Write in the first person where a role word described me - #222
Closed
iderex wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Three tracked files described me from outside instead of saying "I". The text this project carries is written in the first person, so a word that reports on me from outside is a defect in the voice rather than a wording preference. The word is `maintainer`, and it stands here only inside backticks and indented blocks so that the sentences of this message are themselves in the voice they are about. Before, at cfa174a: git grep -icl maintainer -- . | wc -l 3 `decisions/0004` said commits would land in the organisation profile tree from a source its own holder was not reading. That tree is Flowfin/.github, and its roster record in the operations tree names one writer: git -C G:/Github/operations show origin/main:store/repo/.github.md | sed -n '7,8p' Owner: Flowfin Writers: iderex So the sentence was about me and now says so. `decisions/0006` and `decisions/0008` both handed entry 3 of issue #7 to somebody named in the third person. That call is mine, and both records now say so. Each of the three is a correction that does not change the answer, which `decisions/README.md` admits as an ordinary edit on a landed record: Corrections that do not change the answer are ordinary edits: a broken link, a misspelled identifier, a command that has to change because the thing it queries moved. None of the three moves what a reader would decide after reading the record, so none of them needs a new number and none of them supersedes anything. After: git grep -il maintainer -- . ; echo "exit=$?" exit=1 go run . ci 7 of 7 legs ran. None was skipped.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Superseded by #223, and this body is where the reason lives
This pull request carried the change for #220 on a head commit that lacked the
DCO trailer, so the sign-off gate refused it:
Read from the run of
.github/workflows/dco.ymlon that head, 2026-08-31.The trailer cannot be added to a commit that is already pushed without
rewriting the branch, and a wrong history is repaired by pushing the correction
under a new name and abandoning the old one rather than by a force-push. So the
commit was cherry-picked with the trailer onto
documentation/the-decision-records-report-on-me-from-outside, #223 was openedfrom it, and this one is closed.
The content is identical between the two heads, which is the thing worth
checking before abandoning a branch:
Run 2026-08-31. Nothing landed from this branch. What #220 asks for is argued
in full in the body of #223.
What was wrong
Three tracked files described me from outside with a role word. The argument,
the measurements and the run output are in #223 rather than duplicated here.
What this does
Nothing. It is closed unmerged.
Closes
Nothing. #220 is closed by #223.
What was run
The gate was green on this head; what refused it was the DCO check quoted
above, which is a check and not a gate leg.
The means
See #223.
Who read it
Only me. There is no second reader on this board tonight, and this pull request
is closed rather than merged, so nothing reached the mainline from it.