Minor spelling fix: the message AdvertizeLocal: advertizing address 168.103.195.250:8333 in the debug log was misspelt.
fix spelling of advertise (shows up in the debug log) #7526
pull jloughry wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from jloughry:advertize-advertise changing 5 files +10 −10-
jloughry commented at 6:42 PM on February 12, 2016: contributor
-
laanwj commented at 6:46 PM on February 12, 2016: member
Isn't that just US versus UK spelling?
-
jloughry commented at 6:57 PM on February 12, 2016: contributor
I've lived in US and UK and both countries spell it 'advertise'. It's just one of those weird edge cases in English.
References:
- http://grammarist.com/spelling/advertise-vs-advertize/
- The Oxford Style Guide ('Fowler') prefers '-ise' in this particular case.
-
paveljanik commented at 7:10 PM on February 12, 2016: contributor
Can you please fix them all in the source when you are at it?
-
jloughry commented at 7:17 PM on February 12, 2016: contributor
Fixed everywhere in src and doc.
-
paveljanik commented at 7:25 PM on February 12, 2016: contributor
Please check by
git grep advertiz:src/main.cpp: LogPrintf("ProcessMessages: advertizing address %s\n", addr.ToString()); src/main.cpp: LogPrintf("ProcessMessages: advertizing address %s\n", addr.ToString()); src/net.cpp: LogPrintf("AdvertiseLocal: advertizing address %s\n", addrLocal.ToString()); src/torcontrol.cpp: LogPrintf("tor: Got service ID %s, advertizing service %s\n", service_id, service.ToString()); src/torcontrol.cpp: // Stop advertizing service when disconnected -
jloughry commented at 7:40 PM on February 12, 2016: contributor
You're right. The remaining ones have been caught and fixed now. You taught me a new tool---thanks!
-
paveljanik commented at 7:41 PM on February 12, 2016: contributor
@jloughry great! Now can you please squash two commits into one? The same tool, different command line arguments :-)
-
fix spelling of advertise in src and doc 37767fd46f
-
jloughry commented at 9:46 PM on February 12, 2016: contributor
I squashed all my changes into the 37767fd commit, but the pull request has 4 commits in it now: the two original ones that were squashed, plus something new: cb5844d, that appears to be an empty merge. I can't figure out how to clean up the pull request so it contains only one commit:
- 37767fd (This one contains all the changes: keep this one)
- 2ef3edf (first commit, squashed into 37767fd)
- 723551b (second commit, squashed into 37767fd)
- cb5944d (I don't know what this is; it seems to be an empty merge)
How do I edit the pull request to remove the unneeded commits? Or is this normal behaviour when squashing commits? Thanks for the guidance; I want to do it right.
- jloughry force-pushed on Feb 13, 2016
-
jloughry commented at 4:12 AM on February 13, 2016: contributor
Done---there's only one commit in the pull request now. Thank you for showing me how to do it.
-
paveljanik commented at 7:04 AM on February 13, 2016: contributor
-
MarcoFalke commented at 12:41 PM on February 13, 2016: member
You can use *-ize as well: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advertize. Still, I am ok with 37767fd if it get's backported, so we don't create unnecessary backport conflicts.
-
jloughry commented at 8:48 PM on February 14, 2016: contributor
A question of procedure: should backport changes be added to this pull request, or made one or more new pull requests?
-
sipa commented at 12:54 AM on February 15, 2016: member
You should typically only create pull requests against master; we'll backport changes to older releases as needed. In case a patch specifically applies to a backport only (like a change to 0.12 release notes) or is highly nontrivial to apply to older code (due to refactoring that may have taken place), you can create pull requests against specific branches.
-
jloughry commented at 1:08 AM on February 15, 2016: contributor
Thanks for explaining it.
-
laanwj commented at 9:11 AM on February 15, 2016: member
So what is it, can you use advertize or not? If it is remotely valid, I'd prefer to keep it as it (as @marcofalke says this will create rebasing conflicts), if it looks stupid to native English speakers it should be changed.
-
wtogami commented at 9:19 AM on February 15, 2016: contributor
It looks stupid to me, a native English speaker. I might have used it a few times only as it seemed to be an awkward Bitcoin term and I was talking about the peer manager at the time.
- laanwj added the label Docs and Output on Feb 15, 2016
- laanwj added the label Needs backport on Feb 16, 2016
- laanwj merged this on Feb 16, 2016
- laanwj closed this on Feb 16, 2016
- laanwj referenced this in commit 8b70a64d62 on Feb 16, 2016
- MarcoFalke referenced this in commit cfce178eba on Apr 25, 2016
- MarcoFalke referenced this in commit 64fd0ce1d9 on Apr 27, 2016
-
MarcoFalke commented at 10:56 AM on June 9, 2016: member
Backported as part of #7938. Removing label 'Needs backport'.
- MarcoFalke removed the label Needs backport on Jun 9, 2016
- nomnombtc referenced this in commit 41733a96ae on Nov 12, 2016
- nomnombtc referenced this in commit ec372b10dc on Nov 12, 2016
- nomnombtc referenced this in commit da47c770a0 on Nov 13, 2016
- sickpig referenced this in commit 5e14287053 on Nov 14, 2016
- DrahtBot locked this on Sep 8, 2021