Re: [PATCH] fix many comment typos
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 3, 2012, 00:46 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vipf9z0gz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAE1pOi0g1UCebpWGP6FpH0-RbUBxyoWMj_XT7=gNudHrztx0+g@mail.gmail.com>
Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> writes:
Show 31 quoted lines
> On 2 June 2012 16:01, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net> writes:
>>
>>> Use http://github.com/lyda/misspell-check to identify many typos.
>>> Culprits identified and fixed automatically using these commands,
>>> converting diagnostics to single-quote-safe sed -i commands:
>>>
>>> git ls-files|misspellings -f -|perl -nl \
>>> -e '/^(.*?)\[(\d+)\]: (\w+) -> "(.*?)"$/ or next;' \
>>> -e '($file,$n,$l,$r)=($1,$2,$3,$4); $q="'\''"; $r=~s/$q/$q\\$q$q/g;'\
>>> -e 'print "sed -i $q${n}s!$l!$r!$q $file"' \
>>> | grep -vE '\.po$|pt_BR' > k
>>>
>>> Filter out s/seeked/sought/ false positives (they relate to cg-seek):
>>> grep -vE 'seeked' k > j && mv j k
>>
>> ??
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/RelNotes/1.5.4.4.txt b/Documentation/RelNotes/1.5.4.4.txt
>>> index 323c1a8..83453db 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/RelNotes/1.5.4.4.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/RelNotes/1.5.4.4.txt
>>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Fixes since v1.5.4.3
>>>
>>> * "git send-email" in 1.5.4.3 issued a bogus empty In-Reply-To: header.
>>>
>>> - * "git bisect" showed mysterious "won't bisect on seeked tree" error message.
>>> + * "git bisect" showed mysterious "won't bisect on sought tree" error message.
>>
>> ??
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/seekedHere is an advice to Hilco. *THINK*
I hate people who try to be clever by just quoting without saying anything, especially when it is very clear they didn't think the issue. It is irritating.
That description in the 1.5.4.4 release note is stating a HISTORICAL FACT that the command in 1.5.4.3 gave that exact message. What's the point of changing it in the name of typofix? It is irrelevant if the word was misspelled; the whole point of the entry is report what was the problem the release fixed.
What was strange to me, which is why I marked these two places with "??", is that Jim specifically filtered out false "seeked" positives in his procedure, but still the above somehow slipped in.
That discouraged me from applying the patch, as it means I have to eyeball the whole thing to make sure that there aren't similar unintended changes.