Enhancement: Fix typos

[lcn2]

Scope - About this issue

Fix typos in "judges remarks / winner writeup / winner's remarks".

Fix typos in Makefiles.

Fix typos in rules and guidelines for a given year.

Typos include spelling and grammar.

NOTE: This writeup is subject to changes and revisions as the understanding of this issue evolves / improves. Check back to this note from time to time. When modification are made to this comment, we will try to add a note indicating that the scope of this issue has been updated.

Rules and guidelines

To preserve the rules, when a typo is fixed in a rules file, the original rules should be copied into orig.rules. This helps preserve the historic record.

To preserve the guidelines, when a typo is fixed in a guidelines file, the original rules should be copied into orig.guidelines. This helps preserve the historic record.

In some cases rules and guidelines had intentional "bugs". Some of those "bugs" may be in the form of a typo. As such this should NOT be fixed. When in doubt, ask an IOCCC judge.

Language

The spelling and grammar of text written by an IOCCC judge should be in "US English".

The spelling and grammar of winner, however, may differ depending on the origin of the winner.

Edit with some judgment in mind. :-)

Other files

Typos in other webs site files are in scope. Nevertheless, one should NOT edit typos in source code. Such types are "features, not bugs". :-)

[xexyl]

Well as you know I'm EXTREMELY GOOD at this one. I can certainly help with this!

What about when it's not clear what was meant though ?

Scope - About this issue

Fix typos in "judges remarks / winner writeup / winner's remarks".

Fix typos in Makefiles.

Fix typos in rules and guidelines for a given year.

Typos include spelling and grammar.

Though grammar is also a difficult one to consider, see below.

NOTE: This writeup is subject to changes and revisions as the understanding of this issue evolves / improves. Check back to this note from time to time. When modification are made to this comment, we will try to add a note indicating that the scope of this issue has been updated.

Thanks for the note.

Rules and guidelines

To preserve the rules, when a typo is fixed in a rules file, the original rules should be copied into orig.rules. This helps preserve the historic record.

Rules? Perhaps Makefiles?

To preserve the guidelines, when a typo is fixed in a guidelines file, the original rules should be copied into orig.guidelines. This helps preserve the historic record.

Do you mean remarks ? Or have I forgotten some of the names of earlier entries ?

In some cases rules and guidelines had intentional "bugs". Some of those "bugs" may be in the form of a typo. As such this should NOT be fixed. When in doubt, ask an IOCCC judge.

That's another concern indeed. I would also add: we should not modify if it's rot13'd or encrypted in some other form. That's very intentional by the author and has a real meaning. I noted this one before of course.

Language

The spelling and grammar of text written by an IOCCC judge should be in "US English".

The spelling and grammar of winner, however, may differ depending on the origin of the winner.

Indeed. That's really important to me. Thankfully I know enough US English and I use British English so I should be good at this too.

As far as grammar goes: there is a lot to be said and in some cases British English differs too. It might be hard to distinguish which way to use it. There are also some controversial (and some stupid) rules like the don't end a sentence with a preposition. As OED will remind us:

USAGE
There is a traditional view, first set forth by the 17th-century poet and dramatist John Dryden, that it is incorrect to put a preposition at the end of a sentence, as in where do you come from? or she's not a writer I've ever come across. The rule was formulated on the basis that, since in Latin a preposition cannot come after the word it governs or is linked with, the same should be true of English. The problem is that English is not like Latin in this respect, and in many cases (particularly in questions and with phrasal verbs) the attempt to move the preposition produces awkward, unnatural-sounding results. Winston Churchill is often credited with objecting to the rule by saying, ‘This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.’ In standard English the placing of a preposition at the end of a sentence is widely accepted, provided the use sounds natural and the meaning is clear.

Probably the only thing I agree with Churchill about but never mind that! :-)

Edit with some judgment in mind. :-)

Other files

Typos in other webs site files are in scope. Nevertheless, one should NOT edit typos in source code. Such types are "features, not bugs". :-)

Agreed.

[lcn2]

Though grammar is also a difficult one to consider, see below.

If grammatical errors and punctuation and style are to difficult to address, just focus on unclear wording. When some wording needs to be improved, try to maintain the style and format of the author(s): improvement in place rather than rewriting.

Remember that in some cases their may be a pun or joke that should be best as is.

The same could be said to preserve rot13 text as is.

[lcn2]

Thanks for the note.

Just to be clear, when the top level scope comment is updated, we will add a brand new comment at the bottom indicating that the top scope was edited (with a link to that top comment) and perhaps a tiny bit of what was changed or why. We plan to do this for all issues in the repo.

[lcn2]

Well as you know I'm EXTREMELY GOOD at this one. I can certainly help with this!

👍👍👍‼️‼️‼️

[lcn2]

Rules? Perhaps Makefiles?

Yes on rules (and guidelines) for the year.

Every Makefile has already been touched, and the proper "original" (if there was one) was preserved. So you don't need to preserve original copies of Makefiles.

[lcn2]

Do you mean remarks ? Or have I forgotten some of the names of earlier entries ?

The rules and guidelines and overall judges remakes are kept at the year level directory. If those are to be edited, the original text should be kept as an orig file.

[xexyl]

Aside: I am a collector of Notgeld 'emergency money' and I was going through some of my sets this morning as there were some things I wanted to check on them. Unfortunately that took some time so I now have less time here before I need to go do other things. However I hope that later on I can do some work here. We shall see.

And now to the other good stuff - the IOCCC!

Though grammar is also a difficult one to consider, see below.

If grammatical errors and punctuation and style are to difficult to address, just focus on unclear wording. When some wording needs to be improved, try to maintain the style and format of the author(s): improvement in place rather than rewriting.

Yes it might be difficult to address the grammar. And it might be difficult to address the spelling. See below.

Remember that in some cases there may be a pun or joke that should be best as is.

This is another reason to consider not doing this. Perhaps I should just fix spelling errors? I'm not sure. I will do what you wish but: style is difficult to ascertain esp if the person has some peculiarity.

Also I have to say that personally I would not want my entries touched if say someone else was doing this esp without being asked about it.

Should I maybe just address spelling errors / typos and perhaps thing that could EASILY be fixed / clarified?

The same could be said to preserve rot13 text as is.

Absolutely! I even stated this. Plus with mine there's a fun challenge - well the Enigma one - and obviously it's not rot13. For all I know there might be others that are encrypted in some other form that isn't rot13.

[xexyl]

Thanks for the note.

Just to be clear, when the top level scope comment is updated, we will add a brand new comment at the bottom indicating that the top scope was edited (with a link to that top comment) and perhaps a tiny bit of what was changed or why. We plan to do this for all issues in the repo.

Thank you! That's all I need.

[xexyl]

Well as you know I'm EXTREMELY GOOD at this one. I can certainly help with this!

👍👍👍‼️‼️‼️

:)

[xexyl]

Rules? Perhaps Makefiles?

Yes on rules (and guidelines) for the year.

Thank you. I no longer know the context but I'll check back at my reply / the first message at the right time.

Every Makefile has already been touched, and the proper "original" (if there was one) was preserved. So you don't need to preserve original copies of Makefiles.

Thanks!

[xexyl]

Do you mean remarks ? Or have I forgotten some of the names of earlier entries ?

The rules and guidelines and overall judges remakes are kept at the year level directory. If those are to be edited, the original text should be kept as an orig file.

Ah yes. For instance in 2020:

• https://www.ioccc.org/2020/README.md
• https://www.ioccc.org/2020/guidelines.txt
• https://www.ioccc.org/2020/rules.txt

If any of those have typos, for example, they should be renamed to foo.orig and then the fixed copies will be the previous (original .. if it's an original name and it's not original how is it original ? :-) ) name.

[lcn2]

Do you mean remarks ? Or have I forgotten some of the names of earlier entries ?

The rules and guidelines and overall judges remakes are kept at the year level directory. If those are to be edited, the original text should be kept as an orig file.

Ah yes. For instance in 2020:

• https://www.ioccc.org/2020/README.md

• https://www.ioccc.org/2020/guidelines.txt

• https://www.ioccc.org/2020/rules.txt

If any of those have typos, for example, they should be renamed to foo.orig and then the fixed copies will be the previous (original .. if it's an original name and it's not original how is it original ? :-) ) name.

Yes.

[xexyl]

Do you mean remarks ? Or have I forgotten some of the names of earlier entries ?

The rules and guidelines and overall judges remakes are kept at the year level directory. If those are to be edited, the original text should be kept as an orig file.

Ah yes. For instance in 2020:

• https://www.ioccc.org/2020/README.md
• https://www.ioccc.org/2020/guidelines.txt
• https://www.ioccc.org/2020/rules.txt

If any of those have typos, for example, they should be renamed to foo.orig and then the fixed copies will be the previous (original .. if it's an original name and it's not original how is it original ? :-) ) name.

Yes.

Thanks.

[lcn2]

Should I maybe just address spelling errors / typos and perhaps thing that could EASILY be fixed / clarified?

Yes

[xexyl]

Should I maybe just address spelling errors / typos and perhaps thing that could EASILY be fixed / clarified?

Yes

Just to be clear: I meant to not do anything else. Is that still ideal?

.. and I'll be leaving soon. Good news is I got the domains problem completely solved. Tomorrow I will check that DNSSEC is still working but I know the glue records are working (or so it seems through updating the SOA and checking a third party DNS server).

Tomorrow morning I do have more cleaning I need to do but I will be able to discuss more at the least.

UPDATE 0

Leaving now. Will reply to more tomorrow. Enjoy the rest of your day!

[lcn2]

Just to be clear: I meant to not do anything else. Is that still ideal?

Yes, for this particular issue, the idea is to correct typos, and other obvious simple mistakes.

That being said, when you touch a file that hasn't been touched before, and there's not a "orig" copy, a copy needs to be made before changing the file.

UPDATE 0a

Text replaced by comment 1421609887

[lcn2]

OT

I got the domains problem completely solved. Tomorrow I will check that DNSSEC is still working but I know the glue records are working (or so it seems through updating the SOA and checking a third party DNS server).

Congratulations on making progress on your domains.

DNSSEC is something we have been avoiding, but should face, for reasons you can understand.

[lcn2]

Moved this comment to to issue #3 as comment 1421605046

[lcn2]

Moved this comment to issue #3 as comment 1421609887

[xexyl]

Just to be clear: I meant to not do anything else. Is that still ideal?

Yes, for this particular issue, the idea is to correct typos, and other obvious simple mistakes.

That being said, when you touch a file that hasn't been touched before, and there's not a "orig" copy, a copy needs to be made before changing the file.

I think that is imperative as well.

UPDATE 0a

Text replaced by comment 1421609887

I will address this later. I am sure that I will have some questions and general thoughts.

[xexyl]

OT

I got the domains problem completely solved. Tomorrow I will check that DNSSEC is still working but I know the glue records are working (or so it seems through updating the SOA and checking a third party DNS server).

Congratulations on making progress on your domains.

I ended up saving money too and because of that I was able to buy myself more things for my birthday (and rewarding myself for doing so well on losing weight since 2 May .. still have a ways to go but more than half way there).

DNSSEC is something we have been avoiding, but should face, for reasons you can understand.

Thank you. Yes I avoided it for years too but I finally did it and that was years ago now.

[lcn2]

OT

DNSSEC is something we have been avoiding, but should face, for reasons you can understand.

Thank you. Yes I avoided it for years too but I finally did it and that was years ago now.

What do you think you gained by adding DNSSEC?

[xexyl]

OT

DNSSEC is something we have been avoiding, but should face, for reasons you can understand.

Thank you. Yes I avoided it for years too but I finally did it and that was years ago now.

What do you think you gained by adding DNSSEC?

Good question. I think part of it is just the fact it’s extra security.

That and it will silence systems that check for vulnerabilities (at least those that check for it).

It’s probably more important to the user but then my domains don’t exactly have a lot to users. Even so it’s better to have it there anyway.

I will respond to the other replies tomorrow.

I hope you have a great night my friend! When I am awake enough to address the comments I will do that. I will be awake a while yet but I am about to get ready to sleep.

I hope that I can figure out how to fork this repo. What can we do if github doesn’t let me? Something has to be done and unfortunately your idea which I thought would solve the problem didn’t :(

Anyway have a great night! Sleep well my friend!

Good night!

[lcn2]

We believe we have addressed all of the current questions that still need answering at this time. If we've missed something or something else needs to be clarified, please ask again.

[xexyl]

As far as typos / consistences go: I have finished 1984 and since I don't think anything else can be added to that year I think we're probably good there. I obviously have many more years to go but I will follow the order noted above so that everything should be good.

Of course as you say there will probably always be some form of typo or things that could be clearer but it would be nice if we're going through all this effort to get it in the best shape as possible. But then again there comes a point where we want to make it so that we can go on to better things namely the IOCCCMOCK.

[xexyl]

Want me to do this soon (this = go through the files that I have to check again that I have not done any fixes in yet) ?

Sure, as closing this issue would look good to outsiders.

It certainly would but what about what you suggested in the other issue - going through the files first and then look for README.md files so that one can make sure no additional typos can be added?

Of course I have not many years left to do a first pass of README.md files and so I could do that and then do a quick pass for either typos or formatting. I must say that for the formatting check pass I don't think I'd be changing words / adding things found so it's probably a minor chance that any typos would be introduced.

What do you think ?

[lcn2]

Want me to do this soon (this = go through the files that I have to check again that I have not done any fixes in yet) ?

Sure, as closing this issue would look good to outsiders.

It certainly would but what about what you suggested in the other issue - going through the files first and then look for README.md files so that one can make sure no additional typos can be added?

Sounds like a good idea to look at the README.md files.

Of course I have not many years left to do a first pass of README.md files and so I could do that and then do a quick pass for either typos or formatting. I must say that for the formatting check pass I don't think I'd be changing words / adding things found so it's probably a minor chance that any typos would be introduced.

What do you think ?

Sound like a good plan.

[xexyl]

Want me to do this soon (this = go through the files that I have to check again that I have not done any fixes in yet) ?

Sure, as closing this issue would look good to outsiders.

It certainly would but what about what you suggested in the other issue - going through the files first and then look for README.md files so that one can make sure no additional typos can be added?

Of course I have not many years left to do a first pass of README.md files and so I could do that and then do a quick pass for either typos or formatting. I must say that for the formatting check pass I don't think I'd be changing words / adding things found so it's probably a minor chance that any typos would be introduced.

What do you think ?

Sound like a good plan.

Good morning!

So let me make sure that I follow right.

Finish the last few years of README format fixes. Then go through the previously checked ones looking for typos. After that I can then go through them all once more to make sure that formatting is correct? Though it seems kind of wasteful to go through looking for typos and not checking formatting. Might just be more time efficient to do both.

[lcn2]

Want me to do this soon (this = go through the files that I have to check again that I have not done any fixes in yet) ?

Sure, as closing this issue would look good to outsiders.

It certainly would but what about what you suggested in the other issue - going through the files first and then look for README.md files so that one can make sure no additional typos can be added?

Of course I have not many years left to do a first pass of README.md files and so I could do that and then do a quick pass for either typos or formatting. I must say that for the formatting check pass I don't think I'd be changing words / adding things found so it's probably a minor chance that any typos would be introduced.

What do you think ?

Sound like a good plan.

Good morning!

Good morning but going back to sleep 🛌 after this.

So let me make sure that I follow right.

Finish the last few years of README format fixes. Then go through the previously checked ones looking for typos. After that I can then go through them all once more to make sure that formatting is correct? Though it seems kind of wasteful to go through looking for typos and not checking formatting. Might just be more time efficient to do both.

Doing both seems like a more efficient way to proceed, yes.

[xexyl]

Want me to do this soon (this = go through the files that I have to check again that I have not done any fixes in yet) ?

Sure, as closing this issue would look good to outsiders.

It certainly would but what about what you suggested in the other issue - going through the files first and then look for README.md files so that one can make sure no additional typos can be added?
Of course I have not many years left to do a first pass of README.md files and so I could do that and then do a quick pass for either typos or formatting. I must say that for the formatting check pass I don't think I'd be changing words / adding things found so it's probably a minor chance that any typos would be introduced.
What do you think ?

Sound like a good plan.

Good morning!

Good morning but going back to sleep 🛌 after this.

Hope you got more sleep! I've been sleeping in most days - just a bit but it's improvement.

So let me make sure that I follow right.
Finish the last few years of README format fixes. Then go through the previously checked ones looking for typos. After that I can then go through them all once more to make sure that formatting is correct? Though it seems kind of wasteful to go through looking for typos and not checking formatting. Might just be more time efficient to do both.

Doing both seems like a more efficient way to proceed, yes.

It's how I'm going about it. Unfortunately not sure how long it'll take but I think that once I'm more recovered from Saturday I'll be able to do more as long as I have the time and - and this is a potential issue - I don't run into any questions. I can always not do those entries in question though.

[lcn2]

It's how I'm going about it. Unfortunately not sure how long it'll take but I think that once I'm more recovered from Saturday I'll be able to do more as long as I have the time and - and this is a potential issue - I don't run into any questions. I can always not do those entries in question though.

Best wishes then, and good sleeping 🛌 too.

[lcn2]

Just before sleeping again .. have we generally completed this issue? Certainly new typos can be fixed after closing. Nevertheless have we achieved general success on this issue an ready to close it, @xexyl ?

[xexyl]

Just before sleeping again .. have we generally completed this issue? Certainly new typos can be fixed after closing. Nevertheless have we achieved general success on this issue an ready to close it, @xexyl

No because I have not had a chance to go through all years yet.

I probably would be done but the other repo. Sorry. If you want me to work on this I can.

Which would you prefer?

[lcn2]

Just before sleeping again .. have we generally completed this issue? Certainly new typos can be fixed after closing. Nevertheless have we achieved general success on this issue an ready to close it, @xexyl

No because I have not had a chance to go through all years yet.

I probably would be done but the other repo. Sorry. If you want me to work on this I can.

When we start working on the "JSON tree search functions", we will probably need the mkiocccentry repo somewhat quiescent. That would be a good time to shift focus to this repo. But "JSON tree search functions" work will depend on resolving the questions around JSON level, JSON indenting and JSON formatting resolved first.

Which would you prefer?

Fair points, we can leave this open.

We suggest that you wait until the "JSON tree search functions" before shifting focus to this repo.

Really going back to sleep now. 🛌

[xexyl]

Just before sleeping again .. have we generally completed this issue? Certainly new typos can be fixed after closing. Nevertheless have we achieved general success on this issue an ready to close it, @xexyl

No because I have not had a chance to go through all years yet.

I probably would be done but the other repo. Sorry. If you want me to work on this I can.

When we start working on the "JSON tree search functions", we will probably need the mkiocccentry repo somewhat quiescent. That would be a good time to shift focus to this repo. But "JSON tree search functions" work will depend on resolving the questions around JSON level, JSON indenting and JSON formatting resolved first.

Which would you prefer?

Fair points, we can leave this open.

We suggest that you wait until the "JSON tree search functions" before shifting focus to this repo.

Really going back to sleep now. 🛌

Sure.

Sleep well!

[lcn2]

Status question

What years have been processed and what years still need to be worked over for typos?

We don't ask about every possible typo, there endless supply of them it seems sometimes. :-) We, instead, refer to the entries having had a reasonable scan where most of the more "awful" typos have been addressed, as per the top comment of this issue.

[xexyl]

Status question

What years have been processed and what years still need to be worked over for typos?

We don't ask about every possible typo, there endless supply of them it seems sometimes. :-) We, instead, refer to the entries having had a reasonable scan where most of the more "awful" typos have been addressed, as per the top comment of this issue.

Most years I think have been done but I will do another pass. Some years that I did not have a chance to go through at all yet haven't been checked either. Looking at the todo file it seems that I got to at least 2011 but I dimly recall doing a few more years after that.

Going through the files shouldn't take much time and I intend to do it at the same time as I verify that the formatting is okay. That includes changing spaces at ends of lines (like in author info) to be <br>.

[lcn2]

QUESTION

What years have been completed, and what years need to be finished in terms of fixing typos?

[xexyl]

QUESTION

What years have been completed, and what years need to be finished in terms of fixing typos?

I have to go through 2011+ and then do a final pass through the years.

That pass shouldn't take too much time although I might not do it in one sitting.

[xexyl]

As far as this issue and the consistencies fixes issue I remembered something that has to be done. Or rather something that has to be checked. I have a todo.md file that has things that have to be done. Now some if not most of those are part of checking the README.md and one or two have to do with bugs.md so might not apply to these two issues but they all should still be done.

One in fact is done in a sense but it has to be verified after everything else is done with the fixes in entries (consistencies and typos).

I have some good news too in that I think I can skip some of the years wrt an additional pass: just have a final pass. I did the years 2011 and 2012. In 2013 I did cable1 and birken but it appears that I might not have gone beyond that. I at least did not do cable2. I might have done others but these will be discovered in time.

I made this comment, modified to fit the issue, in the consistencies issue too.

I hope this is helpful and encouraging!

UPDATE 0

BTW: I did remove an entry from the todo.md file today as I actually did the task the other day in commit 4836ed4.

[lcn2]

We believe we have addressed all of the current questions that still need answering at this time. If we've missed something or something else needs to be clarified, please ask again.

[lcn2]

QUESTION

What is the status of this issue? Are we ready to close it?

[xexyl]

QUESTION

What is the status of this issue? Are we ready to close it?

Sadly not ready. But the good news is when I'm done with the README.md files (as part of #3) we can probably close this one too.

[lcn2]

We believe we have addressed all of the current questions that still need answering at this time. If we've missed something or something else needs to be clarified, please ask again.

[xexyl]

As far as your query about whether or not the final README files being done (when they are) meaning we can close this issue: most files have had at least one pass and although there might be a few typos left I will discover them with the other issues so if you wanted to close this one (as it is indeed mostly done) that would be quite all right.

If that makes it seem like we're slightly further along then maybe it's even preferable. But in a sense with the exception of the new files like the thanks file and FAQ and such this is mostly done indeed.

I will let you decide whether that's reason enough to close this but I will say that I agree with what I think you think too: it would look nice if another issue was closed AND SINCE the other issue is finishing this one up as well it seems like it would be fine to close anyway.

I am going to try resting now but I should be able to get some entries of 2019 done today. I do have two appointments today (both at home - zoom and phone calls) but only the first one would be at a time that would interrupt my work here. Whether I can do more after that is unknown but it is possible. However that would not be for very long: no more than say an hour and 15 minutes to maybe an hour and 20 or 25 minutes. It's highly unlikely that after that call I will be able to do more.

But for now I'm going to try resting I think. If I can't then I will sit up and try and work on the next entries.

Back in a bit or a while! Again I leave it up to you whether you want to close this issue but on my behalf I think it's more than reasonable! I hope that makes you happy. If I am honest it would kind of make me happy too but less than you probably because I still am not done with all the README files! Still it would also be good as a trick against the mind: it appears that there's one more thing done and since it mostly is done it is fine to close it!

So that's my opinion FWIW.

[xexyl]

To put the above comment more simply: feel free to close this issue. Any remaining I see will be fixed when going through the remaining files. I am aware I missed some but of course that's expected. Most have been addressed though. In some cases I was not sure what something should be so I kept it the same. In cases where I was extra tired I might have missed something too. Plus I am trying to finish it all by the end of the year. Those might be why I missed some but mostly they're all corrected (with the caveat that some of the times I was not aware of what something should be so I kept them the same). Other times of course typos were intentional so those were also kept in.

[lcn2]

Closing this issue as per comment 1860591483.

In particular, as most files have had at least 1 pass, and as issue #3 will address potential typos in the remaining 2019 and 2020 IOCCC years, we can consider this particular issue completed.

Yes, there will be typos to review such as those in the FAQ, the thank you file, top level markdown files (once they are converted from the existing top level HTML), etc. Those files may be reviewed as needed.

Prior to perform the "great fork merge" with the official winner IOCCC repo, a final pre-merge check will be performed. That check at that time will include a typo review.

The "going live" (via the "great fork merge") the Official IOCCC news will be updated, inviting the public to comment and correct (via pull requests), on there state of this temp-test-ioccc repo, allowing for yet another period (perhaps 2-3 weeks) where typos may be corrected.

Thanks for all the help in fixing typos!

[xexyl]

Closing this issue as per comment 1860591483.

In particular, as most files have had at least 1 pass, and as issue #3 will address potential typos in the remaining 2019 and 2020 IOCCC years, we can consider this particular issue completed.

Glad you agree! It looks nice too to only have two entries that are important for the next phase. The OT one is not important and the template one is not important for it either. Just the JSON one (which requires the other repo unfortunately) and the consistency one which is getting there.

Yes, there will be typos to review such as those in the FAQ, the thank you file, top level markdown files (once they are converted from the existing top level HTML), etc. Those files may be reviewed as needed.

Of course. That's expected.

Prior to perform the "great fork merge" with the official winner IOCCC repo, a final pre-merge check will be performed. That check at that time will include a typo review.

I'll be part of that too to be sure. I have some other things on my mind to be doing too with that.

The "going live" (via the "great fork merge") the Official IOCCC news will be updated, inviting the public to comment and correct (via pull requests), on there state of this temp-test-ioccc repo, allowing for yet another period (perhaps 2-3 weeks) where typos may be corrected.

And you can be sure I'll be part of that too. It's not a bad idea to do what you plan. As you'll notice if you haven't already I discovered some problems today when going through entries to mark them as having to disable the optimiser (the few that have that requirement that I have discovered so far).

Thanks for all the help in fixing typos!

You are most welcome! I'm happy to help and you can be sure I'll be doing more. I have something else unrelated to the IOCCC to do and when I'm done with that I hope to resume 2019.

As for typos 'always being there' that's even more true when one considers that there will be other entries in the future - 2024 and on. The good news is the future contests won't take nearly as much time to go through as it'll be just one at a time and the entries will work in modern systems because they're developed for modern systems!