Thanks for the quick reply.
When I send a new patch, should I fold these changes into the original
commit, or should I send them as a separate commit?
>> diff --git a/builtin/apply.c b/builtin/apply.c
>> index b0d0986..6013e19 100644
>> --- a/builtin/apply.c
>> +++ b/builtin/apply.c
>> @@ -4061,7 +4061,7 @@ static int write_out_one_reject(struct patch *patch)
>> return error(_("cannot open %s: %s"), namebuf, strerror(errno));
>>
>> /* Normal git tools never deal with .rej, so do not pretend
>> - * this is a git patch by saying --git nor give extended
>> + * this is a git patch by saying --git or giving extended
>> * headers. While at it, maybe please "kompare" that wants
>> * the trailing TAB and some garbage at the end of line ;-).
>> */
>
> I don't think the change from "give" to "giving" here is grammatically correct.
Is it? I might be misunderstanding the sentence, then. I parse the
new sentence as
Do not pretend this is a git patch by
- saying --git, or
- giving extended headers.
"Giving" is definitely awkward, but I'm not sure of a better word.
I'm happy to rephrase this, but I'm not sure how. I don't think the
original makes much sense, but I'm also happy to leave it.
> How about ``If none of "always", "never", or "auto" is specified, then setting layout
> implies "always".``?
Sure.
> To leave "nor" here, I think you need to replace "not" with "neither".
I think it actually works after the change, but unfortunately Garner's
doesn't give me a lot of ammunition to back up that feeling. :)
How about "We don't expect this to be set by the Makefile or by the
user (via CFLAGS)."
> This would be better worded as "If src_buffer and *src_buffer are not NULL, it should ..."
Done.
-Justin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html