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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 22 Jul 2021 10:01:01 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Hu Haowen <src.res@...il.cn>, apw@...onical.com
Cc:     dwaipayanray1@...il.com, lukas.bulwahn@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: add grammatical judgement for total output

On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 18:04 +0800, Hu Haowen wrote:
> On 2021/7/22 上午12:03, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-07-21 at 23:14 +0800, Hu Haowen wrote:
> > > There lacked a English grammatical identification within the final
> > > output of checkpatch.pl such as the following:
> > > 
> > >     total: 1 errors, 11 warnings, 4094 lines checked
> > >                   ^
> > > 
> > > Which violated the rule about the usage of the singular form and the
> > > plural form. Hence fix the issue up and make it output the proper
> > > sentence.
> > NAK
> > 
> > I appreciate the desire for precision but I don't want to require
> > any automated downstream user of checkpatch to be changed.
> > 
> > I think users understand the output even though it may not be
> > grammatically correct in some cases.
> 
> 
> How about another modification, which turns "errors" into "error(s)"?
> In this case not only did the meaning convey but automated users won't
> be confused toward their automatic programs.

I still think this doesn't need to be changed.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists