Richard Hansen writes:
> Perhaps something like:
>
> -[[def_tree-ish]]tree-ish::
> +[[def_tree-ish]]tree-ish (sometimes misspelled treeish)::
>
> would be satisfactory?
If it is a misspelling, I do not think we need to list both. An
entry "tree-ish" can be found if you were looking for treeish.
On 2013-06-19 13:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Richard Hansen writes:
>
>> The documentation contains a mix of the two spellings, and including
>> both makes it possible for users to search the glossary with their
>> spelling of choice.
>
> Is it an option to instead find dashless form in our docu
On 2013-06-19 13:09, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Richard Hansen writes:
>
>> The documentation contains a mix of the two spellings, and including
>> both makes it possible for users to search the glossary with their
>> spelling of choice.
>
> Is it an option to instead find dashless form in our docu
Richard Hansen writes:
> The documentation contains a mix of the two spellings, and including
> both makes it possible for users to search the glossary with their
> spelling of choice.
Is it an option to instead find dashless form in our documentation
and turn all of them into tree-ish form with
The documentation contains a mix of the two spellings, and including
both makes it possible for users to search the glossary with their
spelling of choice.
Signed-off-by: Richard Hansen
---
Documentation/glossary-content.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Doc
5 matches
Mail list logo
