On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 02:32:26PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:

On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 03:49:02 CET Bagas Sanjaya wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 08:34:43PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Diederik de Haas <redacted>

No patch description, really?

<some odd rationale to describe why your commit log is empty>

So I could've added "The full name of the GPL is not GNU Public License, but 
GNU *General* Public License." to/as the explanation body, but I didn't 
consider that to provide extra (needed) info which wasn't clear from the 
Subject and diff.

My only previous patch submission (to the linux kernel) did contain a full 
explanation body: 7074b39d83f5d71fa4f0521b28bd4fb3a22152c1

*) I made a clusterfsck of similar patch submissions where I replaced "GNU 
Public License" with "GNU General Public License", and got the exact same 
comment from Bagas to several of them.
I've (now) retracted all of those patches, except this one. In those other 
ones, I later realized I would actually be changing the license, not merely 
fixing a spelling error.
See https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2281101.Yu7Ql3qPJb@prancing-pony/ (local)

We use SPDX for precise langauges for the license used. Patches like
these and the one you just sent are otherwise not adding more.

AFAICT, for this patch I'm not changing the actual license, only references to 
that license, so that can still be considered spelling fixes.
That's why I haven't requested to ignore this patch (too).

The only reference we care for is the SPDX one and that work is already done.
As such minor fixes in spelling like yours won't do any good but just
noise at this point. That's exactly why SPDX license tags were
embraced, to make this simple and let us move on with life while having
one simple codified reference to the license so we don't need to deal
with redundant patches fixing grammar on license many times.

As such this changes is not needed.

  Luis