mirror of
https://git.haproxy.org/git/haproxy.git/
synced 2025-08-06 07:07:04 +02:00
DOC: Fix typos in CONTRIBUTING
Fixes typos introduced in 09e0d7422e
as well as anything found by `spell`.
This commit is contained in:
parent
a8ee4b199f
commit
2847f14c94
25
CONTRIBUTING
25
CONTRIBUTING
@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ their spare time. The ideal model for developers is to spend their time :
|
||||
|
||||
It turns out that on a project like HAProxy, like many other similarly complex
|
||||
projects, the time spent is exactly the opposite:
|
||||
1) reviewing other peopel's code
|
||||
1) reviewing other people's code
|
||||
2) doing maintenance backports
|
||||
3) fixing bugs
|
||||
4) developing new features
|
||||
@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ on your work in progress. Also, don't waste your time with the doc when
|
||||
submitting patches for review, only add the doc with the patch you consider
|
||||
ready to merge (unless you need some help on the doc itself, of course).
|
||||
|
||||
Another important point concerns code portability. Haproxy requires gcc as the
|
||||
Another important point concerns code portability. HAProxy requires gcc as the
|
||||
C compiler, and may or may not work with other compilers. However it's known to
|
||||
build using gcc 2.95 or any later version. As such, it is important to keep in
|
||||
mind that certain facilities offered by recent versions must not be used in the
|
||||
@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ work's author.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Rules: the 12 laws of patch contribution
|
||||
-----------------------------------------
|
||||
----------------------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
People contributing patches must apply the following rules. That may sound heavy
|
||||
at the beginning but it's common sense more than anything else and contributors
|
||||
@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ do not think about them anymore after a few patches.
|
||||
necessarily belong to a dirty project. Be careful to the way the text you
|
||||
add is presented and indented. Be very careful about typos, usual mistakes
|
||||
such as double consonants when only one is needed or "it's" instead of
|
||||
"its", don't mix US english and UK english in the same paragraph, etc.
|
||||
"its", don't mix US English and UK English in the same paragraph, etc.
|
||||
When in doubt, check in a dictionary. Fixes for existing typos in the doc
|
||||
are always welcome and chasing them is a good way to become familiar with
|
||||
the project and to get other participants' respect and consideration.
|
||||
@ -737,7 +737,8 @@ The area the patch applies to is quite important, because some areas are known
|
||||
to be similar in older versions, suggesting a backport might be desirable, and
|
||||
conversely, some areas are known to be specific to one version. The area is a
|
||||
single-word lowercase name the contributor find clear enough to describe what
|
||||
part is being touched. The following tags are suggested but not limitative :
|
||||
part is being touched. The following list of tags is suggested but not
|
||||
exhaustive:
|
||||
|
||||
- examples example files. Be careful, sometimes these files are packaged.
|
||||
|
||||
@ -913,7 +914,7 @@ What to do if your patch is ignored
|
||||
|
||||
All patches merged are acknowledged by the maintainer who picked it. If you
|
||||
didn't get an acknowledgement, check the mailing list archives to see if your
|
||||
mail was propely delivered there and possibly if anyone responded and you did
|
||||
mail was properly delivered there and possibly if anyone responded and you did
|
||||
not get their response (please look at http://haproxy.org/ for the mailing list
|
||||
archive's address).
|
||||
|
||||
@ -921,25 +922,25 @@ If you see that your mail is there but nobody responded, please recheck :
|
||||
- was the subject clearly indicating that it was a patch and/or that you were
|
||||
seeking some review?
|
||||
|
||||
- was your e-mail mangled by your mail agent ? If so it's possible that
|
||||
- was your email mangled by your mail agent? If so it's possible that
|
||||
nobody had the willingness yet to mention it.
|
||||
|
||||
- was your e-mail sent as HTML ? If so it definitely ended in spam boxes
|
||||
regardless of the archives
|
||||
- was your email sent as HTML? If so it definitely ended in spam boxes
|
||||
regardless of the archives.
|
||||
|
||||
- did the patch violate some of the principles explained in this document?
|
||||
|
||||
If none of these cases matches, it might simply be that everyone was busy when
|
||||
your patch was sent and that it was overlooked. In this case it's fine to
|
||||
either resubmit it or respond to your own e-mail asking if anything's wrong
|
||||
either resubmit it or respond to your own email asking if anything's wrong
|
||||
about it. In general don't expect a response after one week of silence, just
|
||||
because your e-mail will not appear in anyone else's current window. So after
|
||||
because your email will not appear in anyone else's current window. So after
|
||||
one week it's time to resubmit.
|
||||
|
||||
Among the mistakes that tend to make reviewers not respond are those who send
|
||||
multiple versions of a patch in a row. It's natural for others then to wait for
|
||||
the series to stabilize. And once it doesn't move anymore everyone forgot about
|
||||
it. As a rule of thumb, if you have to update your original e-mail more than
|
||||
it. As a rule of thumb, if you have to update your original email more than
|
||||
twice, first double-check that your series is really ready for submission, and
|
||||
second, start a new thread and stop responding to the previous one. In this
|
||||
case it is well appreciated to mention a version of your patch set in the
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user