linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] tracing: fix spelling mistakes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5ce217e6-c768-f86a-44f1-3b924d838b45@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 29 May 2021 11:03:51 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] tracing: fix spelling mistakes



On 2021/5/29 10:40, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021/5/29 10:11, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 May 2021 10:01:31 +0800
>> "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021/5/29 9:13, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 25 May 2021 14:20:47 +0800
>>>> Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> Fix some spelling mistakes in comments:
>>>>> wont ==> won't  
>>>>
>>>> I prefer not to fix that spelling. I sometimes purposely leave off
>>>> single quotes. It's no that big of a deal, and doesn't deserve the
>>>> churn.  
>>>
>>> Yes, all people can get it right by their wits. "Wont" doesn't affect
>>> their reading speed. But most people might think it's best to add the
>>> missing single quote.
>>>
>>> The minority obeys the majority?
>>
>> I really don't care. 

Thanks.

>> In my opinion, it's unnecessary churn, that just
>> adds noise to the git logs.
> 
> git grep -wn wont | wc -l
> 83
> 
> OK, I just did a search for "wont", and there are currently 83 places in
> use. Language is not mathematics, there is no absolute right or wrong. If
> a lot of people are using it incorrectly or specifically, then the new one
> is also right.
> 
> Wow, should I send v2 to remove "wont ==> won't"?

Actually, I'd prefer to change it to "won't".

> 
>>
>> -- Steve
>>
>> .
>>