threads / patch / 18069

patchadded missing backtick in git-apply.txt

Subject: [PATCH] added missing backtick in git-apply.txt

## tl;dr

2 messages between Feb 28, 2009 and Feb 28, 2009. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 1people: 2as markdown or json

dt@korn.shell.la· Feb 28, 2009, 20:03 UTC · lore
From: Danijel Tasov <dt@korn.shell.la>
Signed-off-by: Danijel Tasov <dt@korn.shell.la>
---
 Documentation/git-apply.txt |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Show changes to Documentation/git-apply.txt +1 −1
diff --git a/Documentation/git-apply.txt b/Documentation/git-apply.txt
index 9400f6a..0566376 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-apply.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-apply.txt
@@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ on the command line, and ignored if there is any include pattern.
 	considered whitespace errors.
 +
 By default, the command outputs warning messages but applies the patch.
-When `git-apply is used for statistics and not applying a
+When `git-apply` is used for statistics and not applying a
 patch, it defaults to `nowarn`.
 +
 You can use different `<action>` to control this
-- 
1.6.1.3
Junio C Hamano· Feb 28, 2009, 21:10 UTC · re: dt@korn.shell.la · lore

Re: [PATCH] added missing backtick in git-apply.txt

dt@korn.shell.la writes:
Show 20 quoted lines
> From: Danijel Tasov <dt@korn.shell.la>
>
> Signed-off-by: Danijel Tasov <dt@korn.shell.la>
> ---
>  Documentation/git-apply.txt |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/git-apply.txt b/Documentation/git-apply.txt
> index 9400f6a..0566376 100644
> --- a/Documentation/git-apply.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/git-apply.txt
> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ on the command line, and ignored if there is any include pattern.
>  	considered whitespace errors.
>  +
>  By default, the command outputs warning messages but applies the patch.
> -When `git-apply is used for statistics and not applying a
> +When `git-apply` is used for statistics and not applying a
>  patch, it defaults to `nowarn`.
>  +
>  You can use different `<action>` to control this
Thanks.

This was caused by the large documentation churn 483bc4f (Documentation formatting and cleanup, 2008-06-30) that was supposed to be a clean-up. Can people lend eyeballs to see if there isn't any other such typo remaining? I briefly looked at the commit again and I think it is Ok now, but I obviously missed this when I first applied the patch, so...

← back to recent threads