[spelling] existance to existence

[spelling] existance to existence

This CL corrects the spelling of existence.

(code health)
BUG=None
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.android:android_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.mac:mac_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.win:win_optional_gpu_tests_rel

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2916723002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#478403}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/118577369265f078d8f4e6d7ad7b99833aa833a1

[dschuyler, 2017-05-31 22:06:27]

Description was changed from

==========
[spelling] existance to existence

This CL corrects the spelling of existence.

(code health)
BUG=None
==========

to

==========
[spelling] existance to existence

This CL corrects the spelling of existence.

(code health)
BUG=None
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.android:android_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.mac:mac_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.win:win_optional_gpu_tests_rel
==========

[dschuyler, 2017-05-31 22:09:34]

dschuyler@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ thestig@chromium.org

[dschuyler, 2017-05-31 22:09:35]

Spelling existence.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2916723002/diff/1/content/browser/webui/web_u...
File content/browser/webui/web_ui_mojo_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2916723002/diff/1/content/browser/webui/web_u...
content/browser/webui/web_ui_mojo_browsertest.cc:207:
base::ThreadRestrictions::ScopedAllowIO allow_io_for_file_existence_check;
This is an 'auto' or 'stack' var, so the variable is not used elsewhere.

https://codereview.chromium.org/2916723002/diff/1/content/test/webui_resource...
File content/test/webui_resource_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2916723002/diff/1/content/test/webui_resource...
content/test/webui_resource_browsertest.cc:30:
base::ThreadRestrictions::ScopedAllowIO allow_io_for_file_existence_check;
This is an 'auto' or 'stack' var, so the variable is not used elsewhere.

[Lei Zhang, 2017-05-31 22:14:14]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/2916723002/diff/1/content/test/webui_resource...
File content/test/webui_resource_browsertest.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/2916723002/diff/1/content/test/webui_resource...
content/test/webui_resource_browsertest.cc:30:
base::ThreadRestrictions::ScopedAllowIO allow_io_for_file_existence_check;
On 2017/05/31 22:09:35, dschuyler wrote:
> This is an 'auto' or 'stack' var, so the variable is not used elsewhere.

I am familiar with ScopedAllowIO.

[dschuyler, 2017-05-31 22:21:06]

The CQ bit was checked by dschuyler@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-31 22:21:49]

CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-31 22:32:25]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-05-31 22:32:26]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on master.tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[dschuyler, 2017-05-31 22:52:34]

dschuyler@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jochen@chromium.org

[dschuyler, 2017-05-31 22:52:34]

jochen@, Lei (thestig@) has looked these over, but most of them need owner
approval.

It's all spelling corrections (maybe an RS LGTM?)

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2017-06-02 11:27:38]

On 2017/05/31 at 22:52:34, dschuyler wrote:
> jochen@, Lei (thestig@) has looked these over, but most of them need owner
approval.
> 
> It's all spelling corrections (maybe an RS LGTM?)

can you add some more background why you change this?

I'd expect that this will quickly regress again, so if there's a particular
reason for fixing this spelling in the entire code base, should we have a
presubmit check protecting against it?

Otherwise, I wonder whether it's worth the churn to fix one instance of a
spelling mistake at one point in time.

[dschuyler, 2017-06-06 00:22:17]

On 2017/06/02 11:27:38, jochen wrote:
> On 2017/05/31 at 22:52:34, dschuyler wrote:
> > jochen@, Lei (thestig@) has looked these over, but most of them need owner
> approval.
> > 
> > It's all spelling corrections (maybe an RS LGTM?)
> 
> can you add some more background why you change this?
> 
> I'd expect that this will quickly regress again, so if there's a particular
> reason for fixing this spelling in the entire code base, should we have a
> presubmit check protecting against it?
> 
> Otherwise, I wonder whether it's worth the churn to fix one instance of a
> spelling mistake at one point in time.

I proposed adding "Some spelling checks in presubmit" in
chromium-dev@chromium.org to some mixed responses so far. What are your thoughts
on a presubmit checking for misspelled words?

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2017-06-06 14:50:12]

I tend to agree with Brett here

[dschuyler, 2017-06-06 18:19:24]

On 2017/06/06 14:50:12, jochen wrote:
> I tend to agree with Brett here

Does that imply that fixing typos without enforcing the prevention of typos is
the correct step forward?

Is there any reason not to land this CL?

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2017-06-08 04:33:44]

On 2017/06/06 at 18:19:24, dschuyler wrote:
> On 2017/06/06 14:50:12, jochen wrote:
> > I tend to agree with Brett here
> 
> Does that imply that fixing typos without enforcing the prevention of typos is
the correct step forward?

No, I don't think that makes sense for typos in comments.

> Is there any reason not to land this CL?

Why is this typo worse than any of the others?

[dschuyler, 2017-06-08 19:27:41]

On 2017/06/08 04:33:44, jochen wrote:
> On 2017/06/06 at 18:19:24, dschuyler wrote:
> > On 2017/06/06 14:50:12, jochen wrote:
> > > I tend to agree with Brett here
> > 
> > Does that imply that fixing typos without enforcing the prevention of typos
is
> the correct step forward?
> 
> No, I don't think that makes sense for typos in comments.
> 
> > Is there any reason not to land this CL?
> 
> Why is this typo worse than any of the others?

It's simply a typo. Typos area easy to make, I make them all the time. My hope
is that they would be easy to fix as well.

Typos can be 'worse' if they end up as offensive or change the meaning of the
text they are in. Most typos are distracting or harder to recognize the meaning
and that hinders readability. Mistypes (as pointed out by michaelpg@) can also
make it harder to code-search the code (since mistypes won't match the query).
Correct text also serves as an implicit guide to writing better text (by
example) and typos can have the reverse effect (I've incorrectly learned the
spelling of a word before, because I referenced another misspelling).

Very minor typos can be alternate spellings from a similar language (such as
British English spellings in US English text).

This is a medium case: it's not an offensive word it's also not an alternate
spelling. It's akin to saying 7 + 3 = 20 (it's not offensive and it's not an
alternate answer).

I'd prefer not to spend too much time on a typo fix, but the resistance to the
fix is confusing. Could you help me understand why this CL should not land?

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2017-06-08 22:10:50]

On 2017/06/08 at 19:27:41, dschuyler wrote:
> On 2017/06/08 04:33:44, jochen wrote:
> > On 2017/06/06 at 18:19:24, dschuyler wrote:
> > > On 2017/06/06 14:50:12, jochen wrote:
> > > > I tend to agree with Brett here
> > > 
> > > Does that imply that fixing typos without enforcing the prevention of
typos is
> > the correct step forward?
> > 
> > No, I don't think that makes sense for typos in comments.
> > 
> > > Is there any reason not to land this CL?
> > 
> > Why is this typo worse than any of the others?
> 
> It's simply a typo. Typos area easy to make, I make them all the time. My hope
is that they would be easy to fix as well.
> 
> Typos can be 'worse' if they end up as offensive or change the meaning of the
text they are in. Most typos are distracting or harder to recognize the meaning
and that hinders readability. Mistypes (as pointed out by michaelpg@) can also
make it harder to code-search the code (since mistypes won't match the query).
Correct text also serves as an implicit guide to writing better text (by
example) and typos can have the reverse effect (I've incorrectly learned the
spelling of a word before, because I referenced another misspelling).
> 
> Very minor typos can be alternate spellings from a similar language (such as
British English spellings in US English text).
> 
> This is a medium case: it's not an offensive word it's also not an alternate
spelling. It's akin to saying 7 + 3 = 20 (it's not offensive and it's not an
alternate answer).
> 
> I'd prefer not to spend too much time on a typo fix, but the resistance to the
fix is confusing. Could you help me understand why this CL should not land?

I think we should fix spelling when it's potentially offensive, or when it
affects UI, or when you touch the code anyways.

I wouldn't want a stream of CLs fixing individual mistakes (as without any
check, we'll keep getting new mistakes). So where would you propose to draw the
line?

[Lei Zhang, 2017-06-08 22:42:04]

On 2017/06/08 22:10:50, jochen wrote:
> I think we should fix spelling when it's potentially offensive, or when it
> affects UI, or when you touch the code anyways.
>
> I wouldn't want a stream of CLs fixing individual mistakes (as without any
> check, we'll keep getting new mistakes). So where would you propose to draw
the
> line?

The way we arrive at CLs like this is we are reading code and notice a typo.
Just as there are people who like their code to be neat and fix nits, there are
people who dislike spelling errors and would like to fix them as they arise.
Since one now has the itch to fix this one typo, might as well fix the same typo
everywhere with a quick search and replace. Since using a CL to fix only a
single instance of a typo feels silly.

I don't think anyone is calling for enforcement to keep the code base free of
typos. If it regresses, it regresses. Nobody is trying to spend all their time
spell checking comments either.

[jochen (gone - plz use gerrit), 2017-06-08 23:09:06]

after chatting it bit with thestig@ lgtm

note that the only non-trivial change is the .md doc which you can just TBR in
the future.

[dschuyler, 2017-06-09 18:14:51]

The CQ bit was checked by dschuyler@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-09 18:15:18]

CQ is trying da patch.

Follow status at:
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-09 20:45:35]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1497032091626100, "parent_rev":
"db6f4d799bca3afa95c5a560f337639c87b6f2be", "commit_rev":
"118577369265f078d8f4e6d7ad7b99833aa833a1"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-09 20:45:46]

Description was changed from

==========
[spelling] existance to existence

This CL corrects the spelling of existence.

(code health)
BUG=None
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.android:android_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.mac:mac_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.win:win_optional_gpu_tests_rel
==========

to

==========
[spelling] existance to existence

This CL corrects the spelling of existence.

(code health)
BUG=None
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=master.tryserver.chromium.android:android_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.linux:linux_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.mac:mac_optional_gpu_tests_rel;master.tryserver.chromium.win:win_optional_gpu_tests_rel

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2916723002
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#478403}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/118577369265f078d8f4e6d7ad7b...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-06-09 20:45:48]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/118577369265f078d8f4e6d7ad7b...