-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix typos in docs, comments and test assert messages #14872
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@minho42 Thanks for the contribution! I've seen quite a number of PRs which fix typos, but I've yet to see one involving 22 different files at once. Nicely done.
I approve of all of the typo fixes, but I noticed a few which could use some minor improvements.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have verified that all but 1 of the corrections is correct and that that 1 is corrected in the comment. That should be enough review of the corrections themselves. I approve of this given that one correction. I consider the one wording change I approved of to be optional.
'minho': I am willing to merge this, but I first need to know if you intend to fix up the merge conflicts I expect if we try to backport to 3.8, or 3.7. I expect that at least one misspelling is new in master.
Co-Authored-By: Kyle Stanley <aeros167@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Kyle Stanley <aeros167@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Kyle Stanley <aeros167@gmail.com>
@terryjreedy I'd like to resolve the merge conflicts myself but I won't be able to use my laptop for the next few days. |
@aeros167 |
Unless I'm misunderstanding what terry said, the merge conflicts only need to be resolved if he adds the backport labels so that these changes are included in the 3.8 and 3.7 docs. If it's only merged into 3.9 without a backport, the merge conflicts shouldn't be an issue. If all of the deployment tests are passing and there's no indication otherwise, this should be able to get auto-merged into 3.9 without issues. |
@aeros167 |
@aeros167 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Two doc build tests failed with what seems like a false positive
Warning, treated as error:
[distutils/examples:267] "`" found in "This is the description of the ``foobar`` package."
This makes no sense to me because this PR does not touch this doc and because I think the backticks are normal and not an error or even 'suspcious'.
I moved the idlelib fix to a separate PR, #14879, to make sure it gets immediately backported. I keep help.py synchronized across active versions. This change will trigger a test there and a retest here.
@terryjreedy: Please replace |
Thanks @minho42 for the PR, and @terryjreedy for merging it 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.8. |
Sorry, @minho42 and @terryjreedy, I could not cleanly backport this to |
Thank you for the corrections. I was correct that backport would need fixup. I am done with this unless one of you wants to do them. |
@terryjreedy I wouldn't mind trying to help work through the merge conflicts, but I don't think there's way for me to directly edit the PR. |
Right, you prepare a new pr, much as the bot does, using the cherry_picker app on pypi, with the command line given above, except that you continue where the bot quit. To install for recent python, You can use git cherry-pick directly, instead, but cherry_picker will do the routine parts, including pushing to github and making a PR. |
Thanks @aeros167 @terryjreedy |
@terryjreedy Sounds good, I'll give it a try then. I'm interested in the new GitHub triager role, so it would be good to learn how to manually (with When opening the new PR, I should name it something using a similar format to the PR you did, but with 3.8 in brackets?: Also, I'm assuming that I should specifically direct the PR at the branch Edit: The naming and branch to point at was assuming the manual process with |
GH-14900 is a backport of this pull request to the 3.8 branch. |
I was able to resolve the conflicts and create the backport with |
In response to To do 3.7, change 3.8 to 3.7 and leave the commit-to-master hash as is. The conventions here is that all backports are from the original commit to master. A git expert (not me ;-) could fake it by manually applying the (in this case) reduced 3.8 diff, fixing any additional conflicts, and then adding the comment
as long as the result was the same as if that were done. These occasional typo fixes are about the only PRs with such increasing conflicts. |
Created backport for 3.7: GH-14901. There were significantly more conflicts with this one, and several of the sections that changes were made to did not exist in 3.7. |
No description provided.