Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] repo: add filtering options to "repo structure"

> "Mark C. Chu-Carroll" <markchucarroll@fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/revision.c b/revision.c
>> index ee1df92d1d..79d44b58b5 100644
>> --- a/revision.c
>> +++ b/revision.c
>> @@ -2837,7 +2837,7 @@ static int handle_revision_pseudo_opt(struct rev_info *revs,
>>  	 * NOTE!
>>  	 *
>>  	 * Commands like "git shortlog" will not accept the options below
>> -	 * unless parse_revision_opt queues them (as opposed to erroring
>> +	 * unless parse_revision_op	t queues them (as opposed to erroring
>>  	 * out).
>>  	 *
>>  	 * When implementing your new pseudo-option, remember to
>
> What is this change about?
>
>> diff --git a/revision.h b/revision.h
>> index e5dabd18ce..63135c5f88 100644
>> --- a/revision.h
>> +++ b/revision.h
>> @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ struct topo_walk_info;
>>  
>>  struct rev_info {
>>  	/*
>> -	 * Work queue of commits, stored as either a linked list or a
>> +~	 * Work queue of commits, stored as either a linked list or a
>>  	 * priority queue, but never both at the same time.
>>  	 * rev_info_commit_list_to_queue() converts list to queue.
>>  	 */
>
> Ditto.
>
> Everybody makes mistakes during their editing, and occasionally fat
> thumb hits unintended keys while the cursor is in an area one is not
> editing at all.  Mistakes happen and that is perfectly OK.
>
> But a hunk like this one in a submitted patch is a clear sign that
> even the author is not reading what they are sending out.  And this
> patch, among its 16 hunks, two are such hunks that was never
> proofread.
>
> Quite honestly, it is beyond me how anybody would expect others to
> seriously take their time to review such a patch.