{"thread":{"id":"45835","subject":"[PATCH] doc: update SubmittingPatches","startedAt":"2017-04-30T15:45:13Z","lastAt":"2017-05-01T00:10:08Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["René Genz","Junio C Hamano"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"318259","messageId":"1493566941-4122-1-git-send-email-liebundartig@freenet.de","threadId":"45835","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH] doc: update SubmittingPatches","fromName":"René Genz","fromEmail":"liebundartig@freenet.de","sentAt":"2017-04-30T15:42:21Z","receivedAt":"2017-04-30T15:45:13Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"liebundartig@freenet.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/18424198?v=4"},"body":"-use US English spelling\n-minor wording change for better readability\n\nHelped-by: Stefan Beller \nSigned-off-by: René Genz \n---\n Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 12 ++++++------\n 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)\n\ndiff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\nindex bc8ad00..558d465 100644\n--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you\n probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces.\n That being said, patches which plainly describe the things that\n help reviewers check the patch, and future maintainers understand\n-the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarise\n+the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarize\n the point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the\n change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this\n differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things\n@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ patches separate from other documentation changes.\n Oh, another thing. We are picky about whitespaces. Make sure your\n changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped\n in templates/hooks--pre-commit. To help ensure this does not happen,\n-run git diff --check on your changes before you commit.\n+run \"git diff --check\" on your changes before you commit.\n \n \n (2) Describe your changes well.\n@@ -111,10 +111,10 @@ Improve...\".\n \n The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:\n \n- . explains the problem the change tries to solve, iow, what is wrong\n+ . explains the problem the change tries to solve, i.e. what is wrong\n with the current code without the change.\n \n- . justifies the way the change solves the problem, iow, why the\n+ . justifies the way the change solves the problem, i.e. why the\n result with the change is better.\n \n . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any.\n@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:\n Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. \"make xyzzy do frotz\"\n instead of \"[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz\" or \"[I] changed xyzzy\n to do frotz\", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change\n-its behaviour. Try to make sure your explanation can be understood\n+its behavior. Try to make sure your explanation can be understood\n without external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list\n archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion.\n \n@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ smaller project it is a good discipline to follow it.\n The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for\n the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have\n the right to pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are\n-pretty simple: if you can certify the below:\n+pretty simple: if you can certify the below D-C-O:\n \n Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1\n \n-- \n1.9.1\n\n"},{"id":"318273","messageId":"xmqqbmrdl9ns.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com","threadId":"45835","inReplyTo":"1493566941-4122-1-git-send-email-liebundartig@freenet.de","subject":"Re: [PATCH] doc: update SubmittingPatches","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2017-05-01T00:09:59Z","receivedAt":"2017-05-01T00:10:08Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"René Genz writes:\n\n> -use US English spelling\n> -minor wording change for better readability\n>\n> Helped-by: Stefan Beller \n> Signed-off-by: René Genz \n> ---\n\nThanks, will apply. \n\n> Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 12 ++++++------\n> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)\n>\n> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n> index bc8ad00..558d465 100644\n> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches\n> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ If your description starts to get too long, that's a sign that you\n> probably need to split up your commit to finer grained pieces.\n> That being said, patches which plainly describe the things that\n> help reviewers check the patch, and future maintainers understand\n> -the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarise\n> +the code, are the most beautiful patches. Descriptions that summarize\n> the point in the subject well, and describe the motivation for the\n> change, the approach taken by the change, and if relevant how this\n> differs substantially from the prior version, are all good things\n> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ patches separate from other documentation changes.\n> Oh, another thing. We are picky about whitespaces. Make sure your\n> changes do not trigger errors with the sample pre-commit hook shipped\n> in templates/hooks--pre-commit. To help ensure this does not happen,\n> -run git diff --check on your changes before you commit.\n> +run \"git diff --check\" on your changes before you commit.\n> \n> \n> (2) Describe your changes well.\n> @@ -111,10 +111,10 @@ Improve...\".\n> \n> The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:\n> \n> - . explains the problem the change tries to solve, iow, what is wrong\n> + . explains the problem the change tries to solve, i.e. what is wrong\n> with the current code without the change.\n> \n> - . justifies the way the change solves the problem, iow, why the\n> + . justifies the way the change solves the problem, i.e. why the\n> result with the change is better.\n> \n> . alternate solutions considered but discarded, if any.\n> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ The body should provide a meaningful commit message, which:\n> Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. \"make xyzzy do frotz\"\n> instead of \"[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz\" or \"[I] changed xyzzy\n> to do frotz\", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change\n> -its behaviour. Try to make sure your explanation can be understood\n> +its behavior. Try to make sure your explanation can be understood\n> without external resources. Instead of giving a URL to a mailing list\n> archive, summarize the relevant points of the discussion.\n> \n> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ smaller project it is a good discipline to follow it.\n> The sign-off is a simple line at the end of the explanation for\n> the patch, which certifies that you wrote it or otherwise have\n> the right to pass it on as a open-source patch. The rules are\n> -pretty simple: if you can certify the below:\n> +pretty simple: if you can certify the below D-C-O:\n> \n> Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1\n"}]}