On Thu, 4 Jul 2013, Veres Lajos wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Veres Lajos wrote:
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...)
http://lavela.hu/gcc.misspell-fixer.20130704.notrevised.patch.bz2
This is the patch generated by the misspell fixer script.
(This is the patch against the whole tree.)
I did NOT reviewed it yet.
What do you think could it be usefull? Should I review the file?
Probably I could remove some false positives, but I am not a C expert.
The script could do with some improvements, but it would be good indeed to
fix some of those typos.
- the script creates non-words : suppresss
- the script breaks good words : bellwether
- most of the changes are in translation files where it breaks non-english
text
- most of the rest of the changes are in changelogs, which are not that
useful to fix
- the script does not respect the case (inserts some lowercase in the
middle of all-uppercase sentences)
I also believe you should separate comment/doc changes from code changes
(which break the code in several places) and submit only the first
category. Renaming variables with a typo in their name can be done
separately (you can keep them in the same patch if you want, but you'll at
least need to bootstrap the compiler to check for mistakes). Then you
probably want to split the patch per directory for review, unless you can
find a global maintainer willing to review the whole thing. Finally send a
few of those to gcc-patches and see how it goes :-)
Thanks,
--
Marc Glisse
