GNU bug report logs - #60135
[PATCH] doc: fix typos

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 60135 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 60135 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: u-boot <at> lists.denx.de, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk <at> gmx.de>,
 Simon Glass <sjg <at> chromium.org>,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> savoirfairelinux.com>,
 Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla <at> arm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] doc: fix typos
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 21:09:40 -0500

Fix a few typos spot during a first read of the contribution process.

Signed-off-by: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> savoirfairelinux.com>
---

 doc/develop/process.rst              | 4 ++--
 doc/develop/sending_patches.rst      | 6 +++---
 doc/develop/system_configuration.rst | 6 +++---
 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/develop/process.rst b/doc/develop/process.rst
index 0fa0143bf3..ba864bc40b 100644
--- a/doc/develop/process.rst
+++ b/doc/develop/process.rst
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ document.
   <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes>`_
   and similar additional tags.
 
-* Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptible according to
+* Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to
   the `Reveiwer's statement of oversight
   <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#reviewer-s-statement-of-oversight>`_.
   A *Reviewed-by:* tag is a statement of opinion that the patch is an
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ like this:
    workflows and environments however.
 
 #. Although a custodian is supposed to perform their own tests it is a
-   well-known and accepted fact that they needs help from other developers who
+   well-known and accepted fact that they need help from other developers who
    - for example - have access to the required hardware or other relevant
    environments.  Custodians are expected to ask for assistance with testing
    when required.
diff --git a/doc/develop/sending_patches.rst b/doc/develop/sending_patches.rst
index 173075687e..49374f14ff 100644
--- a/doc/develop/sending_patches.rst
+++ b/doc/develop/sending_patches.rst
@@ -20,8 +20,8 @@ LWN article `How to Get Your Change Into the Linux Kernel
 Using patman
 ------------
 
-You can use a tool called patman to prepare, check and sent patches. It creates
-change logs, cover letters and patch notes. It also simplified the process of
+You can use a tool called patman to prepare, check and send patches. It creates
+change logs, cover letters and patch notes. It also simplifies the process of
 sending multiple versions of a series.
 
 See more details at :doc:`patman`.
@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ Notes
 2. All code must follow the :doc:`codingstyle` requirements.
 
 3. Before sending the patch, you *must* run some form of local testing.
-   Submitting a patch that does not build or function correct is a mistake. For
+   Submitting a patch that does not build or function correctly is a mistake. For
    non-trivial patches, either building a number of platforms locally or making
    use of :doc:`ci_testing` is strongly encouraged in order to avoid problems
    that can be found when attempting to merge the patch.
diff --git a/doc/develop/system_configuration.rst b/doc/develop/system_configuration.rst
index 52e4e1df15..40be46b082 100644
--- a/doc/develop/system_configuration.rst
+++ b/doc/develop/system_configuration.rst
@@ -86,12 +86,12 @@ When to use each mechanism
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
 While there are some cases where it should be fairly obvious where to use each
-mechanism, as for example a command would done via Kconfig, a new I2C driver
+mechanism, as for example a command would be done via Kconfig, a new I2C driver
 should use Kconfig and be configured via driver model and a header of values
 generated by an external tool should be ``CFG``, there will be cases where it's
 less clear and one needs to take care when implementing it. In general,
 configuration *options* should be done in Kconfig and configuration *settings*
-should done in driver model or ``CFG``. Let us discuss things to keep in mind
+should be done in driver model or ``CFG``. Let us discuss things to keep in mind
 when picking the appropriate mechanism.
 
 A thing to keep in mind is that we have a strong preference for using Kconfig as
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ to use Kconfig in this case, it would result in using calculated rather than
 constructed values, resulting in less clear code. Consider the example of a set
 of register values for a memory controller. Defining this as a series of logical
 ORs and shifts based on other defines is more clear than the Kconfig entry that
-set the calculated value alone.
+sets the calculated value alone.
 
 When it has been determined that the practical solution is to utilize the
 ``CFG`` mechanism, the next decision is where to place these settings. It is

base-commit: 9bd3d354a1a0712ac27c717df9ad60566b0406ee
-- 
2.38.1

Message #12 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>,
 60135 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: u-boot <at> lists.denx.de, Simon Glass <sjg <at> chromium.org>,
 Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla <at> arm.com>,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> savoirfairelinux.com>,
 Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk <at> gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [bug#60135] [PATCH] doc: fix typos
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 07:28:34 +0100

Le 17 décembre 2022 03:09:40 GMT+01:00, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> a écrit :
>Fix a few typos spot during a first read of the contribution process.
>
>Signed-off-by: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> savoirfairelinux.com>
>---
>
> doc/develop/process.rst              | 4 ++--
> doc/develop/sending_patches.rst      | 6 +++---
> doc/develop/system_configuration.rst | 6 +++---
> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/doc/develop/process.rst b/doc/develop/process.rst
>index 0fa0143bf3..ba864bc40b 100644
>--- a/doc/develop/process.rst
>+++ b/doc/develop/process.rst
>@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ document.
>   <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes>`_
>   and similar additional tags.
> 
>-* Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptible according to
>+* Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to
>   the `Reveiwer's statement of oversight

Somehow you missed "Reveiwer" :)

Message #18 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt <at> canonical.com>
To: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>, guix-patches <at> gnu.org,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, 60135 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: u-boot <at> lists.denx.de, Simon Glass <sjg <at> chromium.org>,
 Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla <at> arm.com>,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> savoirfairelinux.com>,
 Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk <at> gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [bug#60135] [PATCH] doc: fix typos
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 13:18:01 +0000

On 12/17/22 06:28, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 17 décembre 2022 03:09:40 GMT+01:00, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> a écrit :
>> Fix a few typos spot during a first read of the contribution process.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> savoirfairelinux.com>
>> ---
>>
>> doc/develop/process.rst              | 4 ++--
>> doc/develop/sending_patches.rst      | 6 +++---
>> doc/develop/system_configuration.rst | 6 +++---
>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/doc/develop/process.rst b/doc/develop/process.rst
>> index 0fa0143bf3..ba864bc40b 100644
>> --- a/doc/develop/process.rst
>> +++ b/doc/develop/process.rst
>> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ document.
>>    <https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html#using-reported-by-tested-by-reviewed-by-suggested-by-and-fixes>`_
>>    and similar additional tags.
>>
>> -* Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptible according to
>> +* Reviewed-by: The patch has been reviewed and found acceptable according to
>>    the `Reveiwer's statement of oversight
> 
> Somehow you missed "Reveiwer" :)

I will consider this when merging.

Reviewed-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt <at> canonical.com>

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.