Thread: Fixing various typos in comments and docs
This patch fixes various typos I've found, most of them from recent commits. I think none should be controversial except perhaps
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml
@@ -801,7 +801,7 @@ psql --username=postgres --file=script.sql postgres
</para>
<para>
- Because not all statistics are not transferred by
+ Because not all statistics are transferred by
<command>pg_upgrade</command>, you will be instructed to run a command to
regenerate that information at the end of the upgrade. You might need to
set connection parameters to match your new cluster.
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml
@@ -801,7 +801,7 @@ psql --username=postgres --file=script.sql postgres
</para>
<para>
- Because not all statistics are not transferred by
+ Because not all statistics are transferred by
<command>pg_upgrade</command>, you will be instructed to run a command to
regenerate that information at the end of the upgrade. You might need to
set connection parameters to match your new cluster.
Separately from this, I have been working on some tooling to flag typos in new commits. Is that something we'd ever want to automate?
Regards,
Jacob
Attachment
> On 3 Mar 2025, at 01:39, Jacob Brazeal <jacob.brazeal@gmail.com> wrote: > > This patch fixes various typos I've found, most of them from recent commits. Thanks, I've applied the fixes for typos introduced during the v18 cycle. I did leave a few out from your patch though: > - Because not all statistics are not transferred by > + Because not all statistics are transferred by I skipped this as it changes the sentence completely rather than fix a typo. It should perhaps still be fixed but not as part of a typo cleanup. - * Many thanks to Adisak Pochanayon, who's article about SLZ + * Many thanks to Adisak Pochanayon, whose article about SLZ This particular case is Jan's personal writing and not documentation so I don't think we should change that. The other instance of "who's" is probably a correct fix but since that's an old typo it would require backpatching to avoid risking conflicts for backpatching surrounding code so I left that one out as well. > Separately from this, I have been working on some tooling to flag typos in new commits. Is that something we'd ever wantto automate? Existing spellcheckers for code usually have quite high rates of false positives, so any automated tooling would have to avoid that to not become a burden rather than a help. Personally I think it's something which is best suited for manual processing with manual review of findings, much like static code analysis. -- Daniel Gustafsson
Thank you! I had completely forgotten about this, I appreciate that you dug this one out of the archives!
> Existing spellcheckers for code usually have quite high rates of false
> positives, so any automated tooling would have to avoid that to not become a
> burden rather than a help. Personally I think it's something which is best
>suited for manual processing with manual review of findings, much like static
> code analysis.
> positives, so any automated tooling would have to avoid that to not become a
> burden rather than a help. Personally I think it's something which is best
>suited for manual processing with manual review of findings, much like static
> code analysis.
Sounds good.