On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Sebastian Schuberth
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Sebastian Schuberth
> wrote:
>
>>> Is that an improvement? Is the plural of "dup" (used as an
>>> abbreviation of "duplicate") "dupes" not "dups"?
>>
>> My view is that the abbreviation of "duplicate" i
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Sebastian Schuberth
wrote:
>> Is that an improvement? Is the plural of "dup" (used as an
>> abbreviation of "duplicate") "dupes" not "dups"?
>
> My view is that the abbreviation of "duplicate" is not "dup" but
> "dupe", hence the plural "dupes".
For "duplicate" t
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Sebastian Schuberth writes:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth
>> ---
>
> Is that an improvement? Is the plural of "dup" (used as an
> abbreviation of "duplicate") "dupes" not "dups"?
My view is that the abbreviation of "duplicate"
Sebastian Schuberth writes:
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth
> ---
Is that an improvement? Is the plural of "dup" (used as an
abbreviation of "duplicate") "dupes" not "dups"?
> Makefile | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index c
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Schuberth
---
Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index c44eb3a..6f8ae23 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -2447,7 +2447,7 @@ check-docs::
esac; \
done ) | sort
-### Make sure built-ins do n
5 matches
Mail list logo