On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Brad Hards <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, December 20, 2010 08:02:39 pm [email protected] via RT wrote: > -page of the "openssl x509" command line tool for details. The old behaviour > +page of the "openssl x509" commandline tool for details. The old behaviour > > I think either "command line" or "commandline" is OK, but the former is > better. > > > -Two slightly different techniques were developed to support this, one used by > +Two slighly different techniques were developed to support this, one used by > > The original was correctly, slighly is incorrect. > > > -instruction extensions. See accompanying INSTALL file and > +instruction extentions. See accompanying INSTALL file and > > extensions was correct, extentions is incorrect. > > > -simply bad code generated by a buggy component in tool chain or deficiency > +simply bad code generated by a buggy component in toolchain or deficiency > > I think either "tool chain" or "toolchain" is OK, but the former is probably > slightly better. > Ahh. I think I might has reversed <orig> and <new> in diff. My bad.
Jeff ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
