[JENKINS-43507] Fix spelling mistakes

src/main/java/jenkins/scm/api/trait/SCMBuilder.java

@@ -42,9 +42,9 @@
 * <li>All methods should be either {@code final} or {@code abstract} unless there is a documented reason for
 * allowing overrides</li>
 * <li>All "setter" methods will return {@link B} and be called "withXxx"</li>
 * <li>All "getter" methods will called "xxx()" callers should not assume that the returned value is resistent
 * from concurrent changes but implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
 * In other words, it is intentional to reduce intermediate allocations by
 * <li>All "getter" methods will be called "xxx()". Callers should not assume that the returned value is resistant
 * from concurrent changes. Implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
 * In other words, it is intentional for implementations to reduce intermediate allocations by
 * {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(theList);} rather than the concurrency safe
 * {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(theList));}
 * </li>

src/main/java/jenkins/scm/api/trait/SCMNavigatorContext.java

@@ -48,9 +48,9 @@
 * <li>All methods should be either {@code final} or {@code abstract} unless there is a documented reason for
 * allowing overrides</li>
 * <li>All "setter" methods will return {@link C} and be called "withXxx"</li>
 * <li>All "getter" methods will called "xxx()" callers should not assume that the returned value is resistent
 * from concurrent changes but implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
 * In other words, it is intentional to reduce intermediate allocations by
 * <li>All "getter" methods will be called "xxx()". Callers should not assume that the returned value is resistant
 * from concurrent changes. Implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
 * In other words, it is intentional for implementations to reduce intermediate allocations by
 * {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(theList);} rather than the concurrency safe
 * {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(theList));}
 * </li>

src/main/java/jenkins/scm/api/trait/SCMSourceBuilder.java

@@ -44,9 +44,9 @@
 * <li>All methods should be either {@code final} or {@code abstract} unless there is a documented reason for
 * allowing overrides</li>
 * <li>All "setter" methods will return {@link B} and be called "withXxx"</li>
 * <li>All "getter" methods will called "xxx()" callers should not assume that the returned value is resistent
 * from concurrent changes but implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
 * In other words, it is intentional to reduce intermediate allocations by
 * <li>All "getter" methods will be called "xxx()". Callers should not assume that the returned value is resistant
 * from concurrent changes. Implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
 * In other words, it is intentional for implementations to reduce intermediate allocations by
 * {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(theList);} rather than the concurrency safe
 * {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(theList));}
 * </li>

src/main/java/jenkins/scm/api/trait/SCMSourceContext.java

@@ -48,9 +48,9 @@
 * <li>All methods should be either {@code final} or {@code abstract} unless there is a documented reason for
 * allowing overrides</li>
 * <li>All "setter" methods will return {@link C} and be called "withXxx"</li>
 * <li>All "getter" methods will called "xxx()" callers should not assume that the returned value is resistent
 * from concurrent changes but implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
 * In other words, it is intentional to reduce intermediate allocations by
 * <li>All "getter" methods will be called "xxx()". Callers should not assume that the returned value is resistant
 * from concurrent changes. Implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
 * In other words, it is intentional for implementations to reduce intermediate allocations by
 * {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(theList);} rather than the concurrency safe
 * {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(theList));}
 * </li>