Skip to content

[llvm] Fix typos in documentation #147129

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 5, 2025
Merged

[llvm] Fix typos in documentation #147129

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
30dc786
[llvm] Fix a typo in documentation
kazutakahirata Jul 5, 2025
f9b3a31
Fix one more typo.
kazutakahirata Jul 5, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions llvm/docs/DeveloperPolicy.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ upcoming projects, new designs, enhancements, and other community business.
First and foremost is the `LLVM Discourse forums`_, which is the successor
to our former mailing lists (llvm-dev@, cfe-dev@, lldb-dev@, etc). This is
probably the most vital and active communication channel to our highly
distributed open source project. It enables long-form asyncronous text
distributed open source project. It enables long-form asynchronous text
communication, and this is where people tend to propose major changes or
propose new designs in the form of RFCs (Request For Comment), which are
described later. Please be aware that the Discourse forums are public and
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ After posting a major proposal, it is common to receive lots of conflicting
feedback from different parties, or no feedback at all, leaving authors without
clear next steps. As a community, we are aiming for `"rough consensus"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus>`_, similar in spirit to what is
desribed in `IETF RFC7282 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282>`_.
described in `IETF RFC7282 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282>`_.
This requires considering and addressing all of the objections to the RFC, and
confirming that we can all live with the tradeoffs embodied in the proposal.

Expand Down
Loading