On 06.01.20 13:54, Lars Kurth wrote:
On 06/01/2020, 07:25, "Jürgen Groß" <jgr...@suse.com> wrote:
>+## Issue: Small functional issues
>+
>+The most common area of disagreements which happen in code reviews, are
>+differing opinions on whether small functional issues in a patch series
have to
>+be resolved or not before the code is ready to be submitted. Such
disagreements
>+are typically caused by different expectations related to the level of
>+perfection a patch series needs to fulfil before it can be considered
ready to
s/fulfil/fulfill/
>+be committed.
>+
>+To explain this better, I am going to use the analogy of some building
work that
>+has been performed at your house. Let's say that you have a new bathroom
>+installed. Before paying your builder the last instalment, you perform an
s/instalment/installment/
Hi Juergen: thank you for pointing out the remaining typos.
I fixed these in my local tree, with the exception of the two instances above.
The two issues above come down to US vs non-US English
https://grammarist.com/spelling/fulfil-fulfill/
https://grammarist.com/spelling/installment-instalment/
I didn't really review the document for consistency with respect to a
particular style of English spelling.
It does seem though that normally I use US spelling (e.g. minimize) mostly and
of course the Contributor
Covenant has been written US spelling.
I don't have a strong view either way and can have a go at making it consistent
(e.g. in US stylespelling)
I'm not really feeling strong here, but I think consistency
should be the preferred way to go.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
