| Message ID | pull.1794.git.1726770880.gitgitgadget@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Fix typos | expand |
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 2:35 PM Andrew Kreimer via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote: > Fix typos in documentation, comments, etc. > > Andrew Kreimer (20): Thanks. These all look fine. Out of curiosity, did you use a tool to discover these mistakes?
All of these look correct. Maybe all of the commits could be combined into one commit with the message “treewide: fix typos”. But that wasn’t asked for last time.[1] So I dunno.
"Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes: > All of these look correct. > > Maybe all of the commits could be combined into one commit with the > message “treewide: fix typos”. But that wasn’t asked for last time.[1] > So I dunno. It depends. When done carefully to make sure that nothing textually conflicts with any topics in flight, a single "treewide" patch is slightly nicer. If nothing conflicts with nothing else, either format is fine. If something have nasty conflicts (e.g., a refactor moved the comment with typos far from the original location or even to a different file), individual patch form is easier to discard the ones that need to wait. I do not know which case this 20-patch collection falls into. Thanks.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 4:42 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > "Kristoffer Haugsbakk" <kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com> writes: > > Maybe all of the commits could be combined into one commit with the > > message “treewide: fix typos”. But that wasn’t asked for last time.[1] > > So I dunno. > > It depends. When done carefully to make sure that nothing textually > conflicts with any topics in flight, a single "treewide" patch is > slightly nicer. If nothing conflicts with nothing else, either > format is fine. If something have nasty conflicts (e.g., a refactor > moved the comment with typos far from the original location or even > to a different file), individual patch form is easier to discard the > ones that need to wait. > > I do not know which case this 20-patch collection falls into. For what it's worth, I found the submission easier to review as separate patches because it allowed me to review a small batch, do something else for a bit, review another batch, do something else, etc., without losing my place since I deleted the ones I had already reviewed, so I knew that those remaining in my Inbox were still pending review.
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes: > For what it's worth, I found the submission easier to review as > separate patches because it allowed me to review a small batch, do > something else for a bit, review another batch, do something else, > etc., without losing my place since I deleted the ones I had already > reviewed, so I knew that those remaining in my Inbox were still > pending review. It is a very good point. FWIW, all except for one apply cleanly to both v2.46.0 and 'seen', and one fixes a typo introduced between v2.46.0 and 'master'. Will queue. Thanks.