patch, 2 partsMakefile: Improve wording in a comment

>  Makefile | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index c44eb3a..6f8ae23 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -2447,7 +2447,7 @@ check-docs::
>          esac; \
>      done ) | sort
>
> -### Make sure built-ins do not have dups and listed in git.c
> +### Make sure built-ins do not have dupes and are listed in git.c
>  #
>  check-builtins::
>      ./check-builtins.sh

> Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
>> ---
>
> Is that an improvement?  Is the plural of "dup" (used as an
> abbreviation of "duplicate") "dupes" not "dups"?

>> Is that an improvement?  Is the plural of "dup" (used as an
>> abbreviation of "duplicate") "dupes" not "dups"?
>
> My view is that the abbreviation of "duplicate" is not "dup" but
> "dupe", hence the plural "dupes".

> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Sebastian Schuberth
> <sschuberth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Is that an improvement?  Is the plural of "dup" (used as an
>>> abbreviation of "duplicate") "dupes" not "dups"?
>>
>> My view is that the abbreviation of "duplicate" is not "dup" but
>> "dupe", hence the plural "dupes".
>
> For "duplicate" the noun, that is. For "duplicate" the verb I'd be ok
> with "dup" as the abbreviation. "to dup" sounds and looks better than
> "to dupe" :-)
>