Align documentation with recommendation of Linux Documentation Project #12460
Conversation
|
This is not a trivial change IMHO. It requires a CLA. I would otherwise approve it. |
|
Hmm... I thought it was consensus to consider spelling corrections as not copyrightable? |
|
These aren't spelling corrections ... and it does come to the scope of a change moving from trivial to non-trivial. |
util/find-doc-nits
Outdated
| 'file name' => 'filename', | ||
| 'file system' => 'filesystem', | ||
| 'host name' => 'hostname', | ||
| 'host name' => 'hostname', |
util/find-doc-nits
Outdated
| 'non-blocking' => 'nonblocking', | ||
| 'non-default' => 'nondefault', | ||
| 'non-empty' => 'nonempty', | ||
| 'non-negative' => 'non-negative', |
util/find-doc-nits
Outdated
| 'super-user' => 'superuser', | ||
| 'sub-system' => 'subsystem', | ||
| 'super block' => 'superblock', | ||
| 'super user' => 'superuser', |
util/find-doc-nits
Outdated
| 'useable' => 'usable', | ||
| 'userspace' => 'user space', | ||
| 'user name' => 'username', | ||
| 'user name' => 'username', |
slontis
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
util/find-doc-nits needs some changes..
I also think a CLA is required.
paulidale
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed a CLA is required.
This change addresses the issues in the pull request openssl#12460 by essentially removing duplicate lines, changed order of lines (actually away from a lexicographical order) and fixed one false positive. An ICLA is filed.
|
Although i share the opinion of mspncp (how can the application of publicly accepted spelling rules create a copyright infringement claim?) i know as main contributor of a larger long-term projects with many contributors that e.g. license updates can be a pain in such project. So i have filed an ICLA via email to the requested address. It is my understanding that
All requested changes are addressed in the updated branch |
|
Remove the CLA: trivial header and once your CLA is registered (I saw it come in) then you just close and open the case to trigger a recheck and it will be good to proceed. Thanks for taking that step quickly - the change and your CLA are very much appreciated. |
57b3023 to
763b1e2
Compare
In order change the previous commit message, i did a "git reset" in the feature branch to the change before my first commit, did a new commit without the "CLA: trivial" and a "git push -f". I hope, this is what was intended.
Ok, i will close and reopen this pull request after some time (e.g. this evening). |
This change applies the recommendation of the Linux Documentation Project to the documentation files of OpenSSL. Additionally, util/find-doc-nits was updated accordingly. The change follows a suggestion of mspncp on openssl#12370 and incoporates the requested changes on the pull request
763b1e2 to
09794ea
Compare
FYI: It still requires the force push.. For multiple commits you can use And then edit the commit line you need to change to use 'r' (reword) |
|
@gustafn it seems like your email address hasn’t been added to the database yet. Whoever does it will reopen your ticket to kick the CLA bot, so you need not worry about it. |
|
Close/reopen to kick CLA bot. |
|
This pull request is ready to merge |
This change applies the recommendation of the Linux Documentation Project to the documentation files of OpenSSL. Additionally, util/find-doc-nits was updated accordingly. The change follows a suggestion of mspncp on #12370 and incoporates the requested changes on the pull request Reviewed-by: Shane Lontis <shane.lontis@oracle.com> Reviewed-by: Matthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre@ncp-e.com> (Merged from #12460)
CLA: trivial
This change applies the recommendation of the Linux Documentation Project
to the documentation files of OpenSSL. Additionally, util/find-doc-nits
was updated accordingly.
The change follows a suggestion of mspncp on #12370
Checklist