On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Martin Jambor wrote: > > And if the script will be done you should run it for the whole > > codebase. Otherwise the issues won't be fixed until anybody touches them. > > > > perhaps you should be aware that there are people who prefer exactly > that, though the discussions so far have been about > formatting/whitespace problems only. The reason is simpler history > browsing which such changes complicate for little gain (I personally > can cope with it but I see the point). > > On the other hand, I think that this would matter much less for lines > where there are only comments. So I'd suggest cherry-picking these > and submitting fixes in them. If the patch is large, split it into a > number of patches for easier review. If there are errors in > identifiers etc. I assume that needs to be handled on case by case > basis, although some related cases can certainly be dealt with > together (and it would upset history a bit so there might even be > opposition to that).
Around 99% of the typos are in comments and documentations a few of them are only in function/variable names (living code). I think it is not really history obtrusive. I will create a small subset for preview and send it for reviewing. (I would not do the whole before getting a green signal... It could take me at least 4-5 hours to review the whole patch...) -- Veres Lajos vla...@gmail.com +36 20 438 5909
