@@ -744,7 +744,7 @@ test_expect_success '3b-check: Avoid implicit rename if involved as source on cu
744744#
745745# What if we were to attempt to do directory rename detection when someone
746746# "mostly" moved a directory but still left some files around, or,
747- # equivalently, fully renamed a directory in one commmit and then recreated
747+ # equivalently, fully renamed a directory in one commit and then recreated
748748# that directory in a later commit adding some new files and then tried to
749749# merge?
750750#
@@ -941,7 +941,7 @@ test_expect_success '5a-check: Merge directories, other side adds files to origi
941941# Commit B: z/{b,c,d_1,e}, y/d_3
942942# Expected: y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(add/add: y/d_2 vs. y/d_3)
943943# NOTE: If z/d_1 in commit B were to be involved in dir rename detection, as
944- # we normaly would since z/ is being renamed to y/, then this would be
944+ # we normally would since z/ is being renamed to y/, then this would be
945945# a rename/delete (z/d_1 -> y/d_1 vs. deleted) AND an add/add/add
946946# conflict of y/d_1 vs. y/d_2 vs. y/d_3. Add/add/add is not
947947# representable in the index, so the existence of y/d_3 needs to
@@ -2089,7 +2089,7 @@ test_expect_success '8b-check: Dual-directory rename, one into the others way, w
20892089#
20902090# Note: It could easily be argued that the correct resolution here is
20912091# y/{b,c,e}, CONFLICT(rename/delete: z/d -> y/d vs deleted)
2092- # and that the modifed version of d should be present in y/ after
2092+ # and that the modified version of d should be present in y/ after
20932093# the merge, just marked as conflicted. Indeed, I previously did
20942094# argue that. But applying directory renames to the side of
20952095# history where a file is merely modified results in spurious
0 commit comments