# [PATCH] Documentation: hooks: fix missing verb in pre-applypatch description 2 messages from 2008-05-01 to 2008-05-01. Participants: Christian Couder, Thomas Adam. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/13340 ## Christian Couder, 2008-05-01 08:17 Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: hooks: fix missing verb in pre-applypatch description Message-ID: <20080501101759.0f40268e.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20080501101759.0f40268e.chriscool%40tuxfamily.org ``` Signed-off-by: Christian Couder --- Documentation/githooks.txt | 9 +++++---- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > I am afraid I can't parse the final sentence: I assume it means > that the patched working tree is not committed, but the missing verb > makes it harder for non-native speakers of the english language to > understand what is meant here. Perhaps something like this patch would fix it. diff --git a/Documentation/githooks.txt b/Documentation/githooks.txt index 62ee065..0ede1ac 100644 --- a/Documentation/githooks.txt +++ b/Documentation/githooks.txt @@ -40,10 +40,11 @@ The default 'applypatch-msg' hook, when enabled, runs the pre-applypatch -------------- -This hook is invoked by `git-am`. It takes no parameter, -and is invoked after the patch is applied, but before a commit -is made. Exiting with non-zero status causes the working tree -after application of the patch not committed. +This hook is invoked by `git-am`. It takes no parameter, and is +invoked after the patch is applied, but before a commit is made. + +If it exits with non-zero status, then the working tree will not be +committed after application of the patch. It can be used to inspect the current working tree and refuse to make a commit if it does not pass certain test. -- 1.5.5.1.100.gc23d ``` ## Thomas Adam, 2008-05-01 09:56 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: hooks: fix missing verb in pre-applypatch description Message-ID: <18071eea0805010256j7f442230od4e0483905830b2b@mail.gmail.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/18071eea0805010256j7f442230od4e0483905830b2b%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20080501101759.0f40268e.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> ``` On 01/05/2008, Christian Couder wrote: > +If it exits with non-zero status, then the working tree will not be > +committed after application of the patch. That's even worse. "committed after application of the patch". Too formal, and a little odd. Try: "committed after applying the patch." -- Thomas Adam ```