* a couple consistent misspellings that could be fixed
@ 2014-06-26 18:28 Robert P. J. Day
  2014-06-26 19:09 ` Sascha Hauer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2014-06-26 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: U-Boot Version 2 (barebox)
  being the pedant that i am, i notice the following widespread
misspellings in the barebox codebase:
* "existance" (should be existence)
  actually, not that widespread, only three, all comments so easy to
fix
* "persistant" (should be persistent)
  this one is much uglier -- a couple dozen, including its use in
runnable code itself. just run:
  $ grep -r persistant *
to see what i mean.
  what's the policy for fixing a spelling error that spills over from
the comments into compilable code itself?
rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: a couple consistent misspellings that could be fixed
  2014-06-26 18:28 a couple consistent misspellings that could be fixed Robert P. J. Day
@ 2014-06-26 19:09 ` Sascha Hauer
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sascha Hauer @ 2014-06-26 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: U-Boot Version 2 (barebox)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:28:21PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
>   being the pedant that i am, i notice the following widespread
> misspellings in the barebox codebase:
> 
> * "existance" (should be existence)
> 
>   actually, not that widespread, only three, all comments so easy to
> fix
> 
> * "persistant" (should be persistent)
> 
>   this one is much uglier -- a couple dozen, including its use in
> runnable code itself. just run:
> 
>   $ grep -r persistant *
Uh, quite a few.
> 
> to see what i mean.
> 
>   what's the policy for fixing a spelling error that spills over from
> the comments into compilable code itself?
You can fix them all in a single patch, no need to split it up. At least
not as long there's not a function which uses 'persistent' and
'persistant' as two different variables ;)
Sascha
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-06-26 19:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-06-26 18:28 a couple consistent misspellings that could be fixed Robert P. J. Day
2014-06-26 19:09 ` Sascha Hauer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox