From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 13:57:00 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] doc: fix typos via codespell Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260602111552.6084-1-algonell@gmail.com> Andrew Kreimer writes: > There are some typos in the documentation, comments, etc. > Fix them via codespell. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Kreimer > --- > v3: > - Address test breaking changes (strings bounded by single quotes). > - Thank you for your patience (extreme noise/gain ratio). Thanks, but this is wrong. > > t/t1700-split-index.sh | 2 +- > t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh | 6 +++--- > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) [v3] should not be "on top of" [v2], but the above shows that apparently this is vastly different from [v2], which had Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 2 +- Documentation/git-sparse-checkout.adoc | 2 +- Documentation/technical/build-systems.adoc | 6 +++--- builtin/pack-objects.c | 2 +- commit-graph.h | 2 +- compat/precompose_utf8.c | 2 +- hook.h | 2 +- meson_options.txt | 2 +- midx-write.c | 2 +- odb/source.h | 2 +- packfile.h | 2 +- path.h | 2 +- reftable/system.h | 2 +- t/README | 2 +- t/chainlint.pl | 2 +- t/chainlint/chain-break-false.expect | 2 +- t/chainlint/chain-break-false.test | 2 +- t/t1700-split-index.sh | 2 +- t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh | 6 +++--- t/t4052-stat-output.sh | 2 +- t/t4067-diff-partial-clone.sh | 2 +- t/t9150/svk-merge.dump | 10 +++++----- t/t9151/svn-mergeinfo.dump | 18 +++++++++--------- t/unit-tests/clar/README.md | 2 +- 24 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) Until the topic is merged to 'next', a new iteration of patch(es) should cleanly apply to the base that [v2] was meant to apply, but should pretend as if [v2] never existed. > diff --git a/t/t1700-split-index.sh b/t/t1700-split-index.sh > index 869fb4a14e..887e72a5fa 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 won't catch the problem > + # must not write a new shareindex, or we will not catch the problem The committed code never had "we won't" (what was in 'seen' does not count), and this patch clearly shows that this is to fix-up the breakage the previous round caused. We do not want that. I'll squash the fix-up I already had into [v2] that I have queued, which should be sufficient to get to the state this [v3] should have been, I think. Thanks.