Re: [PATCH v2] doc: fix typos via codespell

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Andrew Kreimer <algonell@gmail.com> writes:

> diff --git a/midx-write.c b/midx-write.c
> index 561e9eedc0..19e1cd10b7 100644
> --- a/midx-write.c
> +++ b/midx-write.c
> @@ -1461,7 +1461,7 @@ static int write_midx_internal(struct write_midx_opts *opts)
>  
>  		/*
>  		 * Attempt opening the pack index to populate num_objects.
> -		 * Ignore failiures as they can be expected and are not
> +		 * Ignore failures as they can be expected and are not
>  		 * fatal during this selection time.
>  		 */
>  		open_pack_index(oldest);

You seem to have lost the following hunk from the previous round

diff --git a/midx-write.c b/midx-write.c
index a25cab75ab..6d6d29c6cd 100644
--- a/midx-write.c
+++ b/midx-write.c
@@ -1152,7 +1152,7 @@ static bool midx_needs_update(struct multi_pack_index *midx, struct write_midx_c
 
 	/*
 	 * Ensure that we have a valid checksum before consulting the
-	 * exisiting MIDX in order to determine if we can avoid an
+	 * existing MIDX in order to determine if we can avoid an
 	 * update.
 	 *
 	 * This is necessary because the given MIDX is loaded directly

but it is OK as the same fix appears in 'master' thanks to 22235136
(midx-write: handle noop writes when converting incremental chains,
2026-05-19).

Other than that, I made sure that there is no other changes since
the initial patch other than that the changes to po/ and git-gui/ no
longer exist in the topic, which matches what the proposed commit
log says.

However, there are things that BREAK tests.

> diff --git a/t/t1700-split-index.sh b/t/t1700-split-index.sh
> index ac4a5b2734..869fb4a14e 100755
> --- a/t/t1700-split-index.sh
> +++ b/t/t1700-split-index.sh
> @@ -502,7 +502,7 @@ test_expect_success 'do not refresh null base index' '
>  		git checkout main &&
>  		git update-index --split-index &&
>  		test_commit more &&
> -		# must not write a new shareindex, or we wont catch the problem
> +		# must not write a new shareindex, or we won't catch the problem
>  		git -c splitIndex.maxPercentChange=100 merge --no-edit side-branch 2>err &&
>  		# i.e. do not expect warnings like
>  		# could not freshen shared index .../shareindex.00000...

The edit above is made to a STRING that is enclosed inside a pair of
single quote.  If we want to use "won't", we would need to write "We
won'\''t", but while it may be syntactically correct as a part of
shell script, it is a pointless change, as the target audience wants
to see this line as if it is just a plain text.

"We will not" would be acceptable,

> diff --git a/t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh b/t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh
> index 73f2dbdeb0..3afa6bff3d 100755
> --- a/t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh
> +++ b/t/t3909-stash-pathspec-file.sh
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ verify_expect () {
>  test_expect_success 'simplest' '
>  	restore_checkpoint &&
>  
> -	# More files are written to make sure that git didnt ignore
> +	# More files are written to make sure that git didn't ignore

Ditto.  "did not ignore".

>  	# --pathspec-from-file, stashing everything
>  	echo A >fileA.t &&
>  	echo B >fileB.t &&
> @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ test_expect_success 'simplest' '
>  test_expect_success '--pathspec-file-nul' '
>  	restore_checkpoint &&
>  
> -	# More files are written to make sure that git didnt ignore
> +	# More files are written to make sure that git didn't ignore

Ditto.

>  	# --pathspec-from-file, stashing everything
>  	echo A >fileA.t &&
>  	echo B >fileB.t &&
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ test_expect_success '--pathspec-file-nul' '
>  test_expect_success 'only touches what was listed' '
>  	restore_checkpoint &&
>  
> -	# More files are written to make sure that git didnt ignore
> +	# More files are written to make sure that git didn't ignore

Ditto.

It is a bit disappointing that the changes were guided by a tool
called Codespell, yet apparently the tool does not seem to
understand the syntax rules of the language the files it is
modifying is written in X-<.

Thanks.