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 > fix > > * "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 ;) Sascha -- 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 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
