From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Justin Lebar Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Fix misuses of "nor" in comments Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:13:45 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1395353785-23611-1-git-send-email-jlebar@google.com> <1395353785-23611-4-git-send-email-jlebar@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: git , Richard Hansen , "Shawn O. Pearce" , Jeff King , Jonathan Nieder , Justin Lebar To: "Jason St. John" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 21 00:14:14 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WQmA9-0006Er-DG for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 21 Mar 2014 00:14:13 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760063AbaCTXOI (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:14:08 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com ([209.85.192.50]:63118 "EHLO mail-qg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759810AbaCTXOH (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:14:07 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 3434 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:14:07 EDT Received: by mail-qg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id q108so4740804qgd.9 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=QD1bkkbnSl/d64xmlm0PowrlW9q7EbZ6kcKgf7kckBs=; b=VC8vAUwJSX/kyk45dsy8oAq9/Rue27w803GpHu5EYYl/uZTDEPL2R41fxTG+CCUa6E DwbEfSQ3N+JrWgx8R8R7saH0QULo+obuBSpVYIVbuqTKJHGZomWzT+UYb0Pn4l/+eJBu tDY3txs0idMbsjLLmvgbWMY+rjbAvzxV3v7zD1n2ZqdgDS9gXWaX4cyn0GBeA+V0aXr2 HY5g4g/SAs3m/rPsvHXnwUzlcYia0ov5VQhmsaqe2mrqI6XQ8C6NUZsx6q24hfW9n3FR 0O0g9zI0V2G3d7eYIf8kN+L3cJE/xKQ2l6CpeMPFuMRjw210jDB/+Njf3EkB407iPMN2 eqEQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=QD1bkkbnSl/d64xmlm0PowrlW9q7EbZ6kcKgf7kckBs=; b=mUcCB3O6Wl4F8YbkmFGLgWhJ0y3Lz/r47npm1tlw+QUTHessvL92uUuPVXbEsn9VcV AQCfkHBuF6m+NoIb47Cw20EdMEjl5zpL3smypF8xp+Xcdcr0YtGrswjcVhqICQyn0ZFX E0jb3kDX84B5Y0FbMsYdBHHT7SK4pfc/wwl/xR9Vae2u4FwIIh5GajXfs6BR/bLoKA8+ qmbkv3eMO9S9yjlNeJcAfayVE3oeRc1xxnZns4yL1P5SHqODay4x9v0DVWw4LxFdMUfD 6AFgTEXVM2K2WbebjYrYz37fgdLIeBmuzCvFPlUZfxpswbisKlJXNc/qrIZdSI/Os3UD 2P2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn9gqzBpytWY0RkyooLyfBKmbbbmb4hH24tNy0b2OvbJ8J3HcaYOnu1cRIPFtovMJejH3b+MidVdrrQahHt7QPCgwSf2LOeAMtvDaPV9RqfHfrnlZUz98452jkPV6WgYrdd+6PbdLA5bu1GSUJf0Lst3iM8oZ48Io5hKxdQIJCr8XMowKCA81V+e4+AtMFqj1lINXER X-Received: by 10.224.21.207 with SMTP id k15mr54195949qab.66.1395357245604; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.69.36 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:13:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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