From: Hilco Wijbenga Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 02:39:38 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix many comment typos Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vipf9z0gz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On 2 June 2012 17:46, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Hilco Wijbenga writes: > >> On 2 June 2012 16:01, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Jim Meyering 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/seeked > > Here 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. Ouch. You highlighted two changes that were both about "seeked". Your comment just said "??". I can think but I can't read your mind. :-) > 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. That makes a lot of sense. My apologies for irritating you, that certainly wasn't my intention.