[PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in Documentation/applying-patches.txt.

[PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in Documentation/applying-patches.txt.

[oscar]

From: Oscar Utbult <oscar@oscr.io>

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3127/when-to-use-instead-of-and

Signed-off-by: Oscar Utbult <oscar@oscr.io>
---
 Documentation/applying-patches.txt | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
index a083ba3..77df55b 100644
--- a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
+++ b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Common errors when patching
 ---
  When patch applies a patch file it attempts to verify the sanity of the
 file in different ways.
-Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file & checking the code
+Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file and checking the code
 around the bits being modified matches the context provided in the patch are
 just two of the basic sanity checks patch does.
 
-- 
1.8.0.1

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in Documentation/applying-patches.txt.

[Frans Klaver]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:41 PM,  <oscar@oscr.io> wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in Documentation/applying-patches.txt.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches says:

Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
its behaviour.

> From: Oscar Utbult <oscar@oscr.io>
>
> http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3127/when-to-use-instead-of-and

It might be that a link is enough, but I would prefer to have an
excerpt from that, possibly with the link as reference.

Thanks,
Frans

>
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Utbult <oscar@oscr.io>
> ---
>  Documentation/applying-patches.txt | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
> index a083ba3..77df55b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Common errors when patching
>  ---
>   When patch applies a patch file it attempts to verify the sanity of the
>  file in different ways.
> -Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file & checking the code
> +Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file and checking the code
>  around the bits being modified matches the context provided in the patch are
>  just two of the basic sanity checks patch does.
>
> --
> 1.8.0.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in Documentation/applying-patches.txt.

[Oscar Utbult]

On 2014-09-25 16:48, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:41 PM,  <oscar@oscr.io> wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in 
>> Documentation/applying-patches.txt.
> 
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches says:
> 
> Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
> instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
> to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
> its behaviour.

Thank you for your feedback Frans.

So for example a better description would have been: "use 'and' instead 
of '&'"?

> 
>> From: Oscar Utbult <oscar@oscr.io>
>> 
>> http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3127/when-to-use-instead-of-and
> 
> It might be that a link is enough, but I would prefer to have an
> excerpt from that, possibly with the link as reference.

You are right. I will provide one in the future.

Oscar

> 
> Thanks,
> Frans
> 
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Oscar Utbult <oscar@oscr.io>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/applying-patches.txt | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt 
>> b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
>> index a083ba3..77df55b 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
>> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Common errors when patching
>>  ---
>>   When patch applies a patch file it attempts to verify the sanity of 
>> the
>>  file in different ways.
>> -Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file & checking the 
>> code
>> +Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file and checking the 
>> code
>>  around the bits being modified matches the context provided in the 
>> patch are
>>  just two of the basic sanity checks patch does.
>> 
>> --
>> 1.8.0.1
>> 
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
>> linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in Documentation/applying-patches.txt.

[Randy Dunlap]

On 09/25/14 06:41, oscar@oscr.io wrote:
> From: Oscar Utbult <oscar@oscr.io>
> 
> http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/3127/when-to-use-instead-of-and
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Utbult <oscar@oscr.io>

Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>

Jiri, for trivial, please.


> ---
>  Documentation/applying-patches.txt | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
> index a083ba3..77df55b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/applying-patches.txt
> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ Common errors when patching
>  ---
>   When patch applies a patch file it attempts to verify the sanity of the
>  file in different ways.
> -Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file & checking the code
> +Checking that the file looks like a valid patch file and checking the code
>  around the bits being modified matches the context provided in the patch are
>  just two of the basic sanity checks patch does.
>  
> 


-- 
~Randy

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in Documentation/applying-patches.txt.

[Frans Klaver]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 06:28:47PM +0200, Oscar Utbult wrote:
> On 2014-09-25 16:48, Frans Klaver wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:41 PM,  <oscar@oscr.io> wrote:
> >> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in 
> >> Documentation/applying-patches.txt.
> > 
> > Documentation/SubmittingPatches says:
> > 
> > Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
> > instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
> > to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
> > its behaviour.
> 
> Thank you for your feedback Frans.
> 
> So for example a better description would have been: "use 'and' instead 
> of '&'"?

Yes. It is useful to still mention it is affecting documentation only
though. This helps identifying whether a change may be related to a
defect for example.

By the way, I just grepped through the documentation, and there are
quite some situations where this same change would happen, so if we care
enough, all those instances could be changed. I don't know if we care
enough though. That's for others, like Randy, to decide.

Frans

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in Documentation/applying-patches.txt.

[Randy Dunlap]

On 09/25/14 12:12, Frans Klaver wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 06:28:47PM +0200, Oscar Utbult wrote:
>> On 2014-09-25 16:48, Frans Klaver wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:41 PM,  <oscar@oscr.io> wrote:
>>>> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Changed "&" with "and" in 
>>>> Documentation/applying-patches.txt.
>>>
>>> Documentation/SubmittingPatches says:
>>>
>>> Describe your changes in imperative mood, e.g. "make xyzzy do frotz"
>>> instead of "[This patch] makes xyzzy do frotz" or "[I] changed xyzzy
>>> to do frotz", as if you are giving orders to the codebase to change
>>> its behaviour.
>>
>> Thank you for your feedback Frans.
>>
>> So for example a better description would have been: "use 'and' instead 
>> of '&'"?
> 
> Yes. It is useful to still mention it is affecting documentation only
> though. This helps identifying whether a change may be related to a
> defect for example.
> 
> By the way, I just grepped through the documentation, and there are
> quite some situations where this same change would happen, so if we care
> enough, all those instances could be changed. I don't know if we care
> enough though. That's for others, like Randy, to decide.

I think that we don't care enough.  The referenced web page talks about
formal documentation.  We aren't quite formal IMO.


-- 
~Randy