# [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Improve wording in a comment 5 messages from 2015-02-05 to 2015-02-05. Participants: Sebastian Schuberth, Junio C Hamano, Stefan Beller. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/38505 ## Sebastian Schuberth, 2015-02-05 13:26 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Improve wording in a comment Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAHGBnuPnwE8K81C_9W65Jk1FMU%3D%3DgMODOKvGYBbgNRNbvx_bag%40mail.gmail.com ``` Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth --- 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 -- 2.1.2-mingw-1 ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2015-02-05 19:17 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Improve wording in a comment Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqr3u4kw13.fsf%40gitster.dls.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: ``` Sebastian Schuberth writes: > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth > --- Is that an improvement? Is the plural of "dup" (used as an abbreviation of "duplicate") "dupes" not "dups"? > 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, 2015-02-05 19:19 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Improve wording in a comment Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAHGBnuPhXWXp%2BOfGsX4i5xOJK81qqua8cp2fDPb76HgaU5C0ww%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Sebastian Schuberth writes: > >> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth >> --- > > 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". -- Sebastian Schuberth ``` ## Sebastian Schuberth, 2015-02-05 19:22 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Improve wording in a comment Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAHGBnuO3wgE_pLu1jcEyExhrzd%2BFk_0Uqs23pFgf1NSZpUxVfQ%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Sebastian Schuberth 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" :-) -- Sebastian Schuberth ``` ## Stefan Beller, 2015-02-05 20:04 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Makefile: Improve wording in a comment Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAGZ79kZdm6a7KDpNyWdLoG5Rc2f-1fCRk1pkg8U2RD3azotkBg%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Sebastian Schuberth wrote: > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Sebastian Schuberth > 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" :-) > We could also not abbreviate that word to avoid discussion there. ```