Thanks for the quick reply. When I send a new patch, should I fold these changes into the original commit, or should I send them as a separate commit?
>> diff --git a/builtin/apply.c b/builtin/apply.c >> index b0d0986..6013e19 100644 >> --- a/builtin/apply.c >> +++ b/builtin/apply.c >> @@ -4061,7 +4061,7 @@ static int write_out_one_reject(struct patch *patch) >> return error(_("cannot open %s: %s"), namebuf, >> strerror(errno)); >> >> /* Normal git tools never deal with .rej, so do not pretend >> - * this is a git patch by saying --git nor give extended >> + * this is a git patch by saying --git or giving extended >> * headers. While at it, maybe please "kompare" that wants >> * the trailing TAB and some garbage at the end of line ;-). >> */ > > I don't think the change from "give" to "giving" here is grammatically > correct. Is it? I might be misunderstanding the sentence, then. I parse the new sentence as Do not pretend this is a git patch by - saying --git, or - giving extended headers. "Giving" is definitely awkward, but I'm not sure of a better word. I'm happy to rephrase this, but I'm not sure how. I don't think the original makes much sense, but I'm also happy to leave it. > How about ``If none of "always", "never", or "auto" is specified, then > setting layout > implies "always".``? Sure. > To leave "nor" here, I think you need to replace "not" with "neither". I think it actually works after the change, but unfortunately Garner's doesn't give me a lot of ammunition to back up that feeling. :) How about "We don't expect this to be set by the Makefile or by the user (via CFLAGS)." > This would be better worded as "If src_buffer and *src_buffer are not NULL, > it should ..." Done. -Justin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html