Обсуждение: gist README typo

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

gist README typo

От
"Kevin Grittner"
Дата:
In the embarrassingly trivial department, I think I found a
misspelled word in the GiST README file (unless it's a valid
alternate spelling I've never seen).

-Kevin


Вложения

Re: gist README typo

От
Robert Haas
Дата:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> In the embarrassingly trivial department, I think I found a
> misspelled word in the GiST README file (unless it's a valid
> alternate spelling I've never seen).

This patch wouldn't apply for me for some reason (mangled
whitespace?), so I just fixed the typo by hand and committed.

It seems like this README could use a bit more editing to make it read
better if anyone is so inclined, although certainly the meaning is
clear enough.

...Robert


Re: gist README typo

От
"Kevin Grittner"
Дата:
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> This patch wouldn't apply for me for some reason (mangled
> whitespace?)
Yup.  Somehow I stripped trailing spaces off of lines.  I think my
editor was being a bit too "helpful".  I'll try to watch that.
Although, maybe we should clean up trailing spaces in READMEs?:
find -name '*README*' | xargs egrep -c ' +$' | grep -v ':0'
./contrib/README:3
./doc/README.mb.big5:13
./doc/README.mb.jp:21
./src/backend/storage/lmgr/README:2
./src/backend/storage/buffer/README:1
./src/backend/storage/freespace/README:1
./src/backend/storage/ipc/README:1
./src/backend/libpq/README.SSL:1
./src/backend/nodes/README:2
./src/backend/access/gist/README:22
./src/backend/access/nbtree/README:1
./src/backend/access/gin/README:16
./src/backend/utils/mmgr/README:1
./src/backend/optimizer/plan/README:17
./src/backend/optimizer/README:1
./src/backend/port/darwin/README:1
./src/bin/pg_dump/README:3
./src/interfaces/ecpg/README.dynSQL:1
./src/tools/backend/README:1
./src/tools/msvc/README:4
./src/tools/pgindent/README:3
./src/test/locale/README:1
./src/test/thread/README:4
./README:1
> It seems like this README could use a bit more editing to make it
> read better if anyone is so inclined, although certainly the
> meaning is clear enough.
I think the same could be said for many of the README files.  In
particular, some of them don't seem to have fully adjusted to being
fact, rather than proposal.  I'll add it to my list of things to
consider working on.
-Kevin