Thread: Fix typos for v12

Hello hackers,

I've done another round of cross-checking the master branch for new
unique identifiers/words. As my previous attempt to fix things was not
noticed, now I'm focusing on distinct typos.
1. authenticaion (user-visible string)
2. becuase
3. checkinunique
4. cheep
5. comparion (user-visible)
6. comparision
7. compatiblity
8. continuescanthat
9. current_locked_pid (user-visible)
10. essentally
11. exptected
12. funcation
13. guarantess
14. HEAP_HASOID
15. Interfact
16. minimalslotslot (similar to heapslot)
17. modifcations
18. multiplcation
19. optimised
20. pased
21. perfer
22. relvant
23. represnting
24. ski p
25. unexcpected (user-visible string)

I still hope such fixes are useful and will be accepted.

Best regards,
Alexander

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:56 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello hackers,
>
> I've done another round of cross-checking the master branch for new
> unique identifiers/words. As my previous attempt to fix things was not
> noticed, now I'm focusing on distinct typos.
> 1. authenticaion (user-visible string)
> 2. becuase
> 3. checkinunique
> 4. cheep
..
>
> I still hope such fixes are useful and will be accepted.
>

I think it is good to fix these.  I haven't verified all but I can
review them.  Isn't it better to fix them as one patch instead of
multiple patches?


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Hello Amit,

25.05.2019 13:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think it is good to fix these.  I haven't verified all but I can
> review them.  Isn't it better to fix them as one patch instead of
> multiple patches?

If a single patch is more convenient, then here it is.
I thought that separate patches would be more handy in case of any doubts.

Best regards,
Alexander

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 4:23 PM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Amit,
>
> 25.05.2019 13:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I think it is good to fix these.  I haven't verified all but I can
> > review them.  Isn't it better to fix them as one patch instead of
> > multiple patches?
>
> If a single patch is more convenient, then here it is.
> I thought that separate patches would be more handy in case of any doubts.
>

I have taken one pass over it and all fixes seem to be correct and got
introduced in v12.  I will re-verify them once again and then commit
your patch if I don't found any problem.  In the meantime, if anyone
else wants to look at it, that would be great.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> I have taken one pass over it and all fixes seem to be correct and got
> introduced in v12.  I will re-verify them once again and then commit
> your patch if I don't found any problem.  In the meantime, if anyone
> else wants to look at it, that would be great.

FWIW, I'd counsel against applying the changes in imath.h/.c, as that
is not our code, and unnecessary variations from upstream will just
make it harder to track upstream.  The rest of this looks fine.

            regards, tom lane

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 8:36 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > I have taken one pass over it and all fixes seem to be correct and got
> > introduced in v12.  I will re-verify them once again and then commit
> > your patch if I don't found any problem.  In the meantime, if anyone
> > else wants to look at it, that would be great.
>
> FWIW, I'd counsel against applying the changes in imath.h/.c, as that
> is not our code, and unnecessary variations from upstream will just
> make it harder to track upstream.
>

This occurred to me as well while reviewing, but I thought typo fixes
should be fine.  Anyway, I have excluded those before pushing.  So, if
we want to fix these, then maybe one has to first get this fixed in
upstream first and then take from there.

>  The rest of this looks fine.
>

Thanks, pushed.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

26.05.2019 16:49, Amit Kapila wrote:
> This occurred to me as well while reviewing, but I thought typo fixes
> should be fine.  Anyway, I have excluded those before pushing.  So, if
> we want to fix these, then maybe one has to first get this fixed in
> upstream first and then take from there.
>
>>  The rest of this looks fine.
>>
> Thanks, pushed.
Thank you Amit!
I've filed a Pull Request in the imath project:
https://github.com/creachadair/imath/pull/39

Best regards,
Alexander

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 06:43:41PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> 26.05.2019 16:49, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > This occurred to me as well while reviewing, but I thought typo fixes
> > should be fine.  Anyway, I have excluded those before pushing.  So, if
> > we want to fix these, then maybe one has to first get this fixed in
> > upstream first and then take from there.
> >
> >>  The rest of this looks fine.
> >>
> > Thanks, pushed.
> Thank you Amit!
> I've filed a Pull Request in the imath project:
> https://github.com/creachadair/imath/pull/39

I noticed that it's gone from upstream.  I also noticed that upstream
did a release in January since the previous pull. Is it worth trying
to merge those in as they arrive?

Best,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate