Skip to content

Conversation

@gustafn
Copy link
Contributor

@gustafn gustafn commented Sep 29, 2021

This is a followup to PR #12527, which i seem to have closed. This PR contains various spelling improvements (typos, repeated words) and aligns the spelling with the rules of the Linux Documentation project.

Checklist
  • documentation is added or updated

@github-actions github-actions bot added the severity: fips change The pull request changes FIPS provider sources label Sep 29, 2021
@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Sep 30, 2021

Ouch, this is a huge patch. I suppose we do not want this on older branches.

@t8m t8m added branch: master Applies to master branch triaged: cleanup The issue/pr deals with cleanup of comments/docs not altering code significantly triaged: documentation The issue/pr deals with documentation (errors) approval: otc review pending labels Sep 30, 2021
@gustafn
Copy link
Contributor Author

gustafn commented Sep 30, 2021

Ouch, this is a huge patch. I suppose we do not want this on older branches.

It is about the same size as before. Not sure if splitting would help.

@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Sep 30, 2021

I am not asking for split, although splitting it might make it more easily reviewable.

Copy link
Member

@t8m t8m left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good work! Some changes need to be dropped or adjusted. Please use git commit --fixup to commit the changes according to the review.

CHANGES.md Outdated
* AIX shared library support overhaul. Switch to AIX "natural" way of
handling shared libraries, which means collecting shared objects of
different versions and bitnesses in one common archive. This allows to
different versions and bitnesses in one common archive. This allows us to
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why adding us

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a common error in technical writings by non-native-speakers of English
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/85069/is-the-construction-it-allows-to-proper-english

I have made a slightly rephrased suggestion.

@@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ static int open_console(UI *ui)
# endif
# ifdef ENODEV
/*
* MacOS X returns ENODEV (Operation not supported by device),
* macOS X returns ENODEV (Operation not supported by device),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please drop this

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've changed it back as requested. Please note that Apple has changed the capitalization a few years ago towards macOS (10.12)

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ will be automatically created, as long as the total of B<ASYNC_JOB>s managed by
the pool does not exceed I<max_size>. When the pool is first initialised
I<init_size> B<ASYNC_JOB>s will be created immediately. If ASYNC_init_thread()
is not called before the pool is first used then it will be called automatically
with a I<max_size> of 0 (no upper limit) and an I<init_size> of 0 (no
with a I<max_size> of 0 (no upper limit) and a I<init_size> of 0 (no
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This does not look like correct change.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

right

@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ over Fp I<p> is the prime for the field. For a curve over F2^m I<p> represents
the irreducible polynomial - each bit represents a term in the polynomial.
Therefore, there will either be three or five bits set dependent on whether the
polynomial is a trinomial or a pentanomial.
In either case, I<a> and I<b> represents the coefficients a and b from the
In either case, I<a> and I<b> represents the coefficients I<a> and I<b> from the
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please revert this.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok

@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ references are consumed for the B<rbio>.

If the B<rbio> and B<wbio> parameters are different and the B<wbio> is the
same as the previously set value and the old B<rbio> and B<wbio> values
were the same as each other then one reference is consumed for the B<rbio>
were the same as each other than one reference is consumed for the B<rbio>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Incorrect change, please revert. This is If.... then....

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok

@@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ extern "C" {
#define OSSL_DRBG_PARAM_ENTROPY_REQUIRED "entropy_required"
#define OSSL_DRBG_PARAM_PREDICTION_RESISTANCE "prediction_resistance"
#define OSSL_DRBG_PARAM_MIN_LENGTH "minium_length"
#define OSSL_DRBG_PARAM_MAX_LENGTH "maxium_length"
#define OSSL_DRBG_PARAM_MAX_LENGTH "maximum_length"
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ha, nice catch but we will need separate PR for this as this changes API of providers. Perhaps we will need a compatibility item... unsure what to do with this.

So please drop this change and open an issue.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

minium isnt quite right either :)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Heh, right.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, reverted. Will open a separate ticket.

"not an ascii character"},
{ERR_PACK(ERR_LIB_PROP, 0, PROP_R_NOT_AN_HEXADECIMAL_DIGIT),
"not an hexadecimal digit"},
"not a hexadecimal digit"},
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is also a generated file..

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO unless you drop the openssl.txt this is not going to be changed by the generator scripts.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The same change was as well in crypto/err/openssl.txt, so the generator scripts will produce the same .c file in case they are triggered. I've left this change in the PR.

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
#ifndef OPENSSL_NO_ERR

static const ERR_STRING_DATA X509V3_str_reasons[] = {
{ERR_PACK(ERR_LIB_X509V3, 0, X509V3_R_BAD_IP_ADDRESS), "bad ip address"},
{ERR_PACK(ERR_LIB_X509V3, 0, X509V3_R_BAD_IP_ADDRESS), "bad IP address"},
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Another generated error file..

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same as above.

@gustafn
Copy link
Contributor Author

gustafn commented Oct 26, 2021

The changes were committed with the --fixup flag.

I<init_size> B<ASYNC_JOB>s will be created immediately. If ASYNC_init_thread()
is not called before the pool is first used then it will be called automatically
with a I<max_size> of 0 (no upper limit) and a I<init_size> of 0 (no
with an I<max_size> of 0 (no upper limit) and a I<init_size> of 0 (no
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is still wrong. You did not revert the a I<init... but changed further an I<max... which should be kept with a.

@t8m t8m added approval: review pending This pull request needs review by a committer and removed approval: otc review pending labels Oct 26, 2021
@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Oct 27, 2021

Could you please rebase the PR to resolve the conflict?

@gustafn gustafn force-pushed the master-src-typography branch from d0a1878 to 2703e06 Compare October 27, 2021 15:13
@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 30 days ago

@gustafn gustafn force-pushed the master-src-typography branch 2 times, most recently from 84e3b9b to 5872756 Compare December 8, 2021 18:07
@gustafn gustafn force-pushed the master-src-typography branch from 5872756 to 00eec21 Compare December 8, 2021 18:09
mattcaswell and others added 2 commits December 8, 2021 19:41
Make it clear that the cipher/digest objects returned from
EVP_get_cipherbyname() and EVP_get_digestbyname() functions have no
associated implementation fetched from a provider.

Fixes openssl#16864

Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from openssl#16893)
openssl-machine pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 23, 2022
… LDP.

Mostly revamped from #16712
- fall thru -> fall through
- time stamp -> timestamp
- host name -> hostname
- ipv6 -> IPv6

Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from #19059)

(cherry picked from commit 9929c81)
@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 309 days ago

beldmit pushed a commit to beldmit/openssl that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2022
partially revamped from openssl#16712
- fall thru -> fall through
- time stamp -> timestamp
- file name -> filename
- host name -> hostname

Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from openssl#19059)
beldmit pushed a commit to beldmit/openssl that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2022
partially revamped from openssl#16712
- fall thru -> fall through
- time stamp -> timestamp
- host name -> hostname
- ipv6 -> IPv6

Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from openssl#19059)
beldmit pushed a commit to beldmit/openssl that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2022
Partially revamped from openssl#16712
- fall thru -> fall through
- time stamp -> timestamp
- host name -> hostname
- ipv6 -> IPv6

Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from openssl#19059)
beldmit pushed a commit to beldmit/openssl that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2022
… LDP.

Mostly revamped from openssl#16712
- fall thru -> fall through
- time stamp -> timestamp
- host name -> hostname
- ipv6 -> IPv6

Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from openssl#19059)
@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 340 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 371 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 402 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 433 days ago

@tom-cosgrove-arm
Copy link
Contributor

@gustafn There are a lot of "various spelling improvements" in this, some clear typo fixes, some preferences. With such a large PR, and such a variety of different changes, it takes a long time to get it through, and a lot of work by reviewers.

I would suggest splitting into smaller PRs, where each one does the same kind of thing: e.g. clear typo fixes in one (file name to filename is preference, not a typo fix). Then parts of this whole can go through, and any sticking points resolved more easily

@gustafn
Copy link
Contributor Author

gustafn commented Apr 18, 2023

I would suggest splitting into smaller PRs, where each one does the same kind of thing: e.g. clear typo fixes in one (file name to filename is preference, not a typo fix). Then parts of this whole can go through, and any sticking points resolved more easily

I will do so. Sorry, for being so lame in this matter, I had some hospital time with an every growing work list, some other more urgent releases... Split this huge change and rechecking will take me some time in a block... But I'll certainly come back to this.

Thanks for the reminder and giving me the feeling that this is appreciated!

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 30 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 61 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 92 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 123 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 154 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 185 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 216 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 247 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 278 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 309 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 340 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 371 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 402 days ago

@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 433 days ago

@FdaSilvaYY
Copy link
Contributor

This PR can be close as I revamped most of it, and codebase has moved since.

@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Jun 25, 2024

Closing this then.

@t8m t8m closed this Jun 25, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approval: review pending This pull request needs review by a committer branch: master Applies to master branch severity: fips change The pull request changes FIPS provider sources triaged: cleanup The issue/pr deals with cleanup of comments/docs not altering code significantly triaged: documentation The issue/pr deals with documentation (errors)

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants