From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36618) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VUjMF-0002Ge-Uo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:30:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VUjMA-0005Zw-N0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:30:47 -0400 Message-ID: <52585F8B.6080604@cloudswitch.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:28:59 -0400 From: Don Koch MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1381520073-32674-1-git-send-email-sw@weilnetz.de> <52585983.1000606@terremark.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3] misc: Spelling and grammar fixes in comments List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Kevin Wolf , qemu-trivial , Stefan Weil , qemu-devel , Don Koch , Alexander Graf , Stefan Hajnoczi , Richard Henderson On 10/11/2013 04:10 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 12 October 2013 05:03, Don Koch wrote: >> On 10/11/2013 03:34 PM, Stefan Weil wrote: >>> * it's -> its >>> * grammar fix in ui/vnc-enc-zywrle.h >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil >>> --- >>> >>> This is v3 of http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/257416/. >>> >>> v3: >>> Don't try to improve a strange sentence in the same context ("Of cause [...]"). > >>> In this method, H/L and X0/X1 is always same position. >>> - This lead us to more speed and less memory. >>> + This leads us to more speed and less memory. >>> Of cause, the result of both method is quite same >>> because it's only difference that coefficient position. >>> */ >>> >> >> Since you're in the neighborhood, this paragraph needs more fixes: > > No, see the note above and the previous discussion. In that case, there in no point in fixing just the lead/leads typo. >> In this method, H/L and X0/X1 is always in the same position. >> This leads us to more speed and less memory. >> Of course, the result of both methods is the same >> because the only difference is the coefficient position. > > Unless you want to say you've reviewed the code and > are completely confident that the original author meant > "the same" or "exactly the same" and not "quite similar" > then we need to leave the original wording alone. > > -- PMM > -d