[PATCH] doc: fix a small, old release notes typo

[PATCH] doc: fix a small, old release notes typo

[D. Ben Knoble]

Signed-off-by: D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble+github@gmail.com>
---
No harm done if you choose not to keep this, I think. Stumbled upon it when
trying to understand Elijah's message [1] about timestamp_t overflowing in 2106
(I though 32-bit time_t overflowed in 2038, but timestamp_t is something
different… except maybe when it's not? Anyway…)

[1]: <pull.2148.git.1781420271100.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>

 Documentation/RelNotes/2.14.0.adoc | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/RelNotes/2.14.0.adoc b/Documentation/RelNotes/2.14.0.adoc
index 2711a2529d..182fbe6179 100644
--- a/Documentation/RelNotes/2.14.0.adoc
+++ b/Documentation/RelNotes/2.14.0.adoc
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ Performance, Internal Implementation, Development Support etc.
    historical use of ulong for timestamp would mean they cannot
    represent some timestamp that the platform allows.  Invent a
    separate and dedicated timestamp_t (so that we can distinguish
-   timestamps and a vanilla ulongs, which along is already a good
+   timestamps and a vanilla ulongs, which alone is already a good
    move), and then declare uintmax_t is the type to be used as the
    timestamp_t.
 

base-commit: 0c8ab3ebcc76981376809c8fe632d0fe18e93347
-- 
2.54.0.1136.gdb2ca164c4.dirty

Re: [PATCH] doc: fix a small, old release notes typo

[Junio C Hamano]

"D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble+github@gmail.com> writes:

> Signed-off-by: D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble+github@gmail.com>
> ---
> No harm done if you choose not to keep this, I think. Stumbled upon it when
> trying to understand Elijah's message [1] about timestamp_t overflowing in 2106
> (I though 32-bit time_t overflowed in 2038, but timestamp_t is something
> different… except maybe when it's not? Anyway…)

Unless it fixes a glaring factual error that would harm end-users if
left unfixed, I would not very much be enthused to see fixes to
these ancient documents, quite honestly.

>     separate and dedicated timestamp_t (so that we can distinguish
> -   timestamps and a vanilla ulongs, which along is already a good
> +   timestamps and a vanilla ulongs, which alone is already a good

"timestamps and vanilla ulongs", as both are plural?