Fixed one minor typo https://www.dictionary.com/e/judgement-vs-judgment/ #351
1 changed files with 2 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ language is used within pull-request comments:
|
|||
Reviewers should include the commit hash which they reviewed in their comments.
|
||||
|
||||
Project maintainers reserve the right to weigh the opinions of peer reviewers
|
||||
using common sense judgement and also may weight based on meritocracy: Those
|
||||
using common sense judgment and also may weight based on meritocracy: Those
|
||||
that have demonstrated a deeper commitment and understanding towards the project
|
||||
(over time) or have clear domain expertise may naturally have more weight, as
|
||||
one would expect in all walks of life.
|
||||
|
@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ of consensus critical code.
|
|||
Where a patch set proposes to change the Bitcoin consensus, it must have been
|
||||
discussed extensively on the mailing list and IRC, be accompanied by a widely
|
||||
discussed BIP and have a generally widely perceived technical consensus of being
|
||||
a worthwhile change based on the judgement of the maintainers.
|
||||
a worthwhile change based on the judgment of the maintainers.
|
||||
|
||||
### Finding Reviewers
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Reference in a new issue