Spelling fixes to docs, docstrings, and comments #6374
Conversation
scop
requested review from
1st1,
gvanrossum,
ilevkivskyi,
terryjreedy and
a team
as code owners
serhiy-storchaka
added
needs backport to 3.6
docs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am against this. Spelling fixes just cause noise in the git history without much benefit. Also, they are often used by people with no interest in contributing further as a way to get their name in some project (though I don't know if the OP here thinks that way).
|
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
|
@scop already contributed two doc fixes.
Should we reject any typo fixes in future? |
|
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 8:37 PM, Guido van Rossum ***@***.***> wrote:
Also, they are often used by people with no interest in contributing further as a way to get their name in some project (though I don't know if the OP here thinks that way).
I certainly don't, and it never was. And if you don't take my word for
it, there's already a bunch of accepted changes with my name on them
in cpython, so that ship (getting my name in the project) has already
sailed quite a while ago. Granted, most of those are related to
spelling etc fixes, but I don't think that's relevant with regards to
the suspicion about my current intent.
|
|
OK, @scop is exonerated, but in general I still think that fixing a bunch of unrelated typos in one diff is just causing noise. It's better to fix typos only when more substantial things in the same file are changed. I know that some other large projects have a strict policy against typo (and style) fixes on account of the noise and work it generates, though I can't quickly find a reference (maybe PHP or Rails?) |
Oh, sorry, I searched by author and therefore found only commits since migrating to Git. Searching in commit messages founds yet 19 commits (and there may be commits based on his patches without mentioning his name). All of them are documentation and spelling fixes. @scop is a stable contributor since 2003. |
|
I hope @scop can expand his contributions to improving the text of the docs
through clarifications, which are more important than spelling. (Ideally
spell checks would run on PRs.)
…On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 11:23 Serhiy Storchaka ***@***.***> wrote:
FWIW also at least
Oh, sorry, I searched by author and therefore found only commits since
migrating to Git. Searching in commit messages founds yet 19 commits (and
there may be commits based on his patches without mentioning his name). All
of them are documentation and spelling fixes. @scop
<https://github.com/scop> is a stable contributor since 2003.
—
You are receiving this because your review was requested.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6374 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACwrMiu7CjXtQfuhBE6FbdC98dS7kxG8ks5tlQ-CgaJpZM4THLub>
.
|
|
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 10:22 PM, Guido van Rossum ***@***.***> wrote:
I hope @scop can expand his contributions to improving the text of the docs
through clarifications, which are more important than spelling.
To be fair, I think I've contributed a few of those already, ditto some
other non-doc related fixes. But this is about enough on this topic, let's
move on, and thanks :)
|
|
Yes, thanks for your contributions, and sorry for not knowing about them!
|
|
I must find misspellings much more annoying than Guido, and am a bit embarrassed that I have added a few. There have been hundreds of fixes in the past few years; they grow like weeds. A PR spell check of (ascii) words in docs and code comments, and strings would be great. Ville ('scop'), would you be interested in helping with this? The main problem would be minimizing false 'errors'. Other people (such as Mariatta) know how to write bots. Ville, I suspect that an auto-backport to 3.7 will fail and expect that the 2.7 backport should (as the IDLE news entry is not in 2.7). Are you willing to do the backports manually? If so, I am willing to merge this and review and merge backports. |
|
I took a look at backporting to 2.7, but turns out none of the misspellings here are present there. I would be interested in learning about writing GitHub bots, and might have some time to help out with creating one for this purpose. So sure, let me know how to get started or help out with that. |
|
Thanks @scop for the PR, and @terryjreedy for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.6, 3.7. |
(cherry picked from commit 61f82e0) Co-authored-by: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
|
GH-6552 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.7 branch. |
|
Sorry, @scop and @terryjreedy, I could not cleanly backport this to |
(cherry picked from commit 61f82e0) Co-authored-by: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@iki.fi>
(cherry picked from commit 61f82e0)
|
GH-6558 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.6 branch. |
terryjreedy
changed the title
|
I opened python/core-workflow#237 - Spellcheck PRs. All the changes merged back to 3.7. 3 to 3.6. |
No description provided.