Skip to content
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.

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

Fix 'backwards' typo #909

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 7, 2023
Merged

Fix 'backwards' typo #909

merged 1 commit into from May 7, 2023

Conversation

ttous
Copy link
Contributor

@ttous ttous commented Jan 16, 2023

@ljharb
Copy link
Contributor

ljharb commented Jan 16, 2023

I'd hardly call this a "typo" since i've never heard "backwards compatible" causing confusion, and since language is descriptive and not proscriptive, that means it's correct as-is.

That said, this doesn't seem harmful.

@mbtools
Copy link

mbtools commented Mar 24, 2023

Agree with the author. It should be "backward"

@JohnTitor JohnTitor closed this May 5, 2023
@JohnTitor JohnTitor reopened this May 5, 2023
Copy link
Member

@JohnTitor JohnTitor left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All the use of "backwards" has "compatible" or "compatibility" and I believe "backwards" is also valid in that context (as Wikipedia says).
I don't have a strong reason to reject though, I think we could merge without RFC as it doesn't have any semantic changes.

@JohnTitor JohnTitor merged commit 583caea into semver:master May 7, 2023
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants