From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 01:16:11 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc: fix typos via codespell Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260531184428.55905-1-algonell@gmail.com> Andrew Kreimer writes: > diff --git a/midx-write.c b/midx-write.c > index 561e9eedc0..19e1cd10b7 100644 > --- a/midx-write.c > +++ b/midx-write.c > @@ -1461,7 +1461,7 @@ static int write_midx_internal(struct write_midx_opts *opts) > > /* > * Attempt opening the pack index to populate num_objects. > - * Ignore failiures as they can be expected and are not > + * Ignore failures as they can be expected and are not > * fatal during this selection time. > */ > open_pack_index(oldest); You seem to have lost the following hunk from the previous round diff --git a/midx-write.c b/midx-write.c index a25cab75ab..6d6d29c6cd 100644 --- a/midx-write.c +++ b/midx-write.c @@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ static bool midx_needs_update(struct multi_pack_index *midx, struct write_midx_c /* * Ensure that we have a valid checksum before consulting the - * exisiting MIDX in order to determine if we can avoid an + * existing MIDX in order to determine if we can avoid an * update. * * This is necessary because the given MIDX is loaded directly but it is OK as the same fix appears in 'master' thanks to 22235136 (midx-write: handle noop writes when converting incremental chains, 2026-05-19). Other than that, I made sure that there is no other changes since the initial patch other than that the changes to po/ and git-gui/ no longer exist in the topic, which matches what the proposed commit log says. However, there are things that BREAK tests. > diff --git a/t/t1700-split-index.sh b/t/t1700-split-index.sh > index ac4a5b2734..869fb4a14e 100755 > --- a/t/t1700-split-index.sh > +++ b/t/t1700-split-index.sh > @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ test_expect_success 'do not refresh null base index' ' > git checkout main && > git update-index --split-index && > test_commit more && > - # must not write a new shareindex, or we wont catch the problem > + # must not write a new shareindex, or we won't catch the problem > git -c splitIndex.maxPercentChange=100 merge --no-edit side-branch 2>err && > # i.e. do not expect warnings like > # could not freshen shared index .../shareindex.00000... The edit above is made to a STRING that is enclosed inside a pair of single quote. If we want to use "won't", we would need to write "We won'\''t", but while it may be syntactically correct as a part of shell script, it is a pointless change, as the target audience wants to see this line as if it is just a plain text. "We will not" would be acceptable, > diff --git a/t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh b/t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh > index 73f2dbdeb0..3afa6bff3d 100755 > --- a/t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh > +++ b/t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ verify_expect () { > test_expect_success 'simplest' ' > restore_checkpoint && > > - # More files are written to make sure that git didnt ignore > + # More files are written to make sure that git didn't ignore Ditto. "did not ignore". > # --pathspec-from-file, stashing everything > echo A >fileA.t && > echo B >fileB.t && > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ test_expect_success 'simplest' ' > test_expect_success '--pathspec-file-nul' ' > restore_checkpoint && > > - # More files are written to make sure that git didnt ignore > + # More files are written to make sure that git didn't ignore Ditto. > # --pathspec-from-file, stashing everything > echo A >fileA.t && > echo B >fileB.t && > @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ test_expect_success '--pathspec-file-nul' ' > test_expect_success 'only touches what was listed' ' > restore_checkpoint && > > - # More files are written to make sure that git didnt ignore > + # More files are written to make sure that git didn't ignore Ditto. It is a bit disappointing that the changes were guided by a tool called Codespell, yet apparently the tool does not seem to understand the syntax rules of the language the files it is modifying is written in X-<. Thanks.