Index: src/com/jme/math/Matrix4f.java
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/jme/src/com/jme/math/Matrix4f.java,v
retrieving revision 1.35
diff -u -r1.35 Matrix4f.java
— src/com/jme/math/Matrix4f.java 17 Aug 2007 20:55:24 -0000 1.35
+++ src/com/jme/math/Matrix4f.java 3 Dec 2007 04:15:48 -0000
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
/**
* <code>Matrix</code> defines and maintains a 4x4 matrix in row major order.
* This matrix is intended for use in a translation and rotational capacity.
-
- It provides convinience methods for creating the matrix from a multitude
-
- It provides convenience methods for creating the matrix from a multitude
* of sources.
*
* @author Mark Powell
If it's small things like typos I think it's better to use the issue tracker: https://jme.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectIssues
No, no. Posting such things on the board is fine. But it would be better to put several typos into one patch and one topic. Starting a new thread for each typo takes more time for you and for the devs…
It would also be a good idea to keep a list of these to double check with the 2.0 code once that is released.
Sorry guys, I wasn't sure which was the best way to send my patches.
I sent out my patches separately because I came across these typos at different times and different days, and created a patch each time, not because I'm a sadist and I like watching developers get flooded with 1-line patches. 
I think I'll be sending patches in at https://jme.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectIssues from now on, as type PATCH, obviously.
If I make a discussion-worthy patch, I'll post about it too.
Keep up the great work, guys!
renanse said:
It would also be a good idea to keep a list of these to double check with the 2.0 code once that is released.
We have the cvs, why would we keep the patches?
shrug I can't really sync 2.0 back to cvs very easily because of all the enums and such. Anyhow, I've applied all these small changes manually so far, so no big.
renanse said:
I can't really sync 2.0 back to cvs
probably. But what I meant: you can still generate a patch from 1.0 to current cvs and have a look what we might want to port into svn instead of keeping all the patches.