a couple consistent misspellings that could be fixed
s.hauer at pengutronix.de
Thu Jun 26 12:09:37 PDT 2014
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 02:28:21PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> being the pedant that i am, i notice the following widespread
> misspellings in the barebox codebase:
> * "existance" (should be existence)
> actually, not that widespread, only three, all comments so easy to
> * "persistant" (should be persistent)
> this one is much uglier -- a couple dozen, including its use in
> runnable code itself. just run:
> $ grep -r persistant *
Uh, quite a few.
> to see what i mean.
> what's the policy for fixing a spelling error that spills over from
> the comments into compilable code itself?
You can fix them all in a single patch, no need to split it up. At least
not as long there's not a function which uses 'persistent' and
'persistant' as two different variables ;)
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
More information about the barebox