gh-143978: Fix typo in ignored.tsv

[benediktjohannes]

"# It initialized only once when main interpeter starts" ("interpeter") has to be "# It initialized only once when main interpreter starts" ("interpreter").

Fixes #143978

• Issue: Typo inside code in ignored.tsv "# It initialized only once when main interpeter starts" ("interpeter") #143978

[python-cla-bot]

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.

[bedevere-app]

Most changes to Python require a NEWS entry. Add one using the blurb_it web app or the blurb command-line tool.

If this change has little impact on Python users, wait for a maintainer to apply the skip news label instead.

[bedevere-app]

Most changes to Python require a NEWS entry. Add one using the blurb_it web app or the blurb command-line tool.

If this change has little impact on Python users, wait for a maintainer to apply the skip news label instead.

[aisk]

LGTM, but please click the red button in python-cla-bot's comment to sign the CLA thus we can merge this.

[benediktjohannes]

Hi, thanks for the review! I just signed CLA and thanks for the question because of the missing second change, but for me it is there: 1. interpeter 2. missing „is“, so maybe a GitHub issue? But I guess you can merge, thanks!

[aisk]

Thanks for addressing this. By the way, the typo fix don't requires a related issue, so you can just open a PR for simple typo fix directly in the future. See the Dev Guide for more details: https://devguide.python.org/

[StanFromIreland]

I do not think we need a separate commit to fix these typos, it is an internal file, not docs or a docstring.

[benediktjohannes]

Hi, you‘re Right, I just mixed something up with the wording. This all is one PR and will appear as one commit, I just added the new word by a change inside this one PR. Thanks!

[Yzi-Li]

Hi, you‘re Right, I just mixed something up with the wording.

I think Stan didn't mean it that way. This is an internal file without user-facing content, so we can fix the typos as a part of other PRs. In other words, this PR is unnecessary.

(Apologies if my understanding is incorrect)

[StanFromIreland]

Thanks @Yzi-Li, that is exactly what I meant, apologies with for the confusion.

[benediktjohannes]

Thanks for the information, but why is it better to do this in combination with something different? Isn‘t it better for the documentation if it is another point in Version history? Thanks!

[picnixz]

The reason is that it adds a kind of "useless" commit. It is an internal file, and users that modify it do not really care. It also makes it diverge from branches that will not have the backports.

We try to avoid commits that are just code churn. Typos can be fixed if they are user-facing ones (docs or docstrings for instance, except for tests).

I am going to close this as "not planned". Sorry.